The Brief

Starbucks customers across hundreds of locations in the United States started their weeks off with a surprise: Their beloved Frappuccinos and iced espresso drinks served in paper cups, not plastic.

The Seattle-based coffee company announced this week that about 580 of its stores had begun replacing its cold drinks cups — typically made out of polypropylene, a type of rigid plastic — with paper versions lined with a thin layer of bioplastic for liquid resistance.

A company spokesperson declined to provide a list of stores affected by the change, but said Starbucks wants to comply with the growing number of local ordinances restricting the distribution of single-use plastics. Some advocacy groups, however, have suggested that the transition away from polypropylene plastic cups is more connected to Starbucks’ own sustainability targets — specifically, a goal the company set last year to make all of its packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2030.

The company’s continued use of plastic seemed to hinge on the idea that the cups could technically fall under the recyclable category. Jan Dell, an independent chemical engineer and founder of the nonprofit the Last Beach Cleanup, says they’re not, and that Starbucks is now acknowledging it.

“This is a clear admission that polypropylene cups are not recyclable” — or, at least, that they don’t get recycled in practice, Dell told Grist.

Dell’s conclusion is based, in part, on an effort she spearheaded last year to see what happens to Starbucks’ plastic cups when deposited in the chain’s in-store recycling bins. She and a partner, Susan Keefe — now with the nonprofit Beyond Plastics — placed tracking devices in empty Starbucks cups across Southern California, dropped the cups off in the chain’s recycling bins, and followed their movements after they were picked up by waste trucks. In almost all cases, the trackers went to a landfill or an incinerator rather than a recycling center.

Her investigation was repeated on a larger scale by CBS News, which tracked cups dropped into 57 Starbucks recycling bins across the country. Of the 36 trackers that produced reliable location information, 32 last pinged at locations that appeared to be landfills, incinerators or waste transfer stations. Just four pinged at locations that appeared to be material recovery facilities, the places where used plastics are sorted for recycling.

A Starbucks spokesperson told Grist that the company’s polypropylene cups are “recyclable in many locations where there is local infrastructure.”

(

Klaudia Radecka

/

NurPhoto via Getty Images

)

A Starbucks spokesperson told Grist that the company’s polypropylene cups are “recyclable in many locations where there is local infrastructure.” But it is unclear where such infrastructure exists.

Last year, CBS News reported that Starbucks was only able to list one facility that turns polypropylene plastic cups into new products, KW Plastics in Alabama. A 2022 Greenpeace report found that this facility has the capacity to recycle only about 1% of the United States’ total polypropylene waste, and may not accept polypropylene waste from states outside the Southeast due to transportation costs. Another limiting factor is the high rate of contamination with other types of plastic, or liquids and food residue. Polypropylene bales from California, for example, have an average contamination rate of 31% — far higher than the 2% contamination rate KW Plastics says it accepts.

KW Plastics did not respond to Grist’s request for comment. (An industry group told Grist there are several more polypropylene recycling facilities in the U.S., but a Grist review of the list it sent found inconsistencies: One facility said it doesn’t accept bales of polypropylene, for instance, and another appeared to not yet be operating.)

Considering all of the 160,000 tons of plastic cups and plates produced in the U.S. in 2018 — the last year for which federal data is available — about 81% was landfilled, and 19% was burned. That leaves roughly 0% for recycling: a “negligible” amount, as the Environmental Protection Agency puts it.

Dell said the high-profile investigations “embarrassed” Starbucks and may have contributed to its move away from polypropylene cups. The company knows its customers “want to feel good about their cold drink or their hot drink cups,” she said. “Consumers do not want to feel guilty.”

Lisa Ramsden, a senior oceans campaigner for Greenpeace, said Starbucks may also be trying to get ahead of anti-plastic regulations in California, which are expected to ban certain types of plastic in the coming years. Already, the state requires the substantiation of recyclability labels like the ubiquitous “chasing arrows” symbol, imprinted on Starbucks’ polypropylene cups and advertised on its in-store recycling bins. Companies that want to label their products as recyclable in the Golden State have to maintain written records explaining why they believe the recycling claim is true, and showing that those products are widely collected and turned into new products within California.

A Starbucks spokesperson said the company’s polypropylene cups are compliant with applicable consumer protection laws and declined to provide additional evidence that the cups are recycled. They said that recycling is “complex and challenging,” and that the company’s goal “is always to reduce the amount of plastic in our waste stream.”

Along with the move toward compostable paper cups, Starbucks, which is navigating a flurry of changes as its new chief executive attempts to improve the company’s image and bottom line, says it is making ceramic mugs available for in-store dining and allowing more customers to order drinks in their own reusable cups. As for Starbucks’ plastic cups, it’s unclear whether and when they will be phased out from the more than 16,000 locations in the U.S. that are still offering them. Last April, the company said it had redesigned its single-use plastic cups to use up to 20% less plastic — a move that would allegedly “keep more than 13.5 million pounds of plastic from landfills each year.”

According to Dell, Starbucks’ move away from plastic cups is a “crack in the wall” of the campaign to promote polypropylene recycling — particularly from the Recycling Partnership, an industry-backed nonprofit that in 2020 launched an initiative called the Polypropylene Recycling Coalition to “ensure the long-term viability of polypropylene plastic.” As of December, the Recycling Partnership said it had distributed $22 million in grants to recycling facilities to improve the collection and sorting of polypropylene. The organization’s chief policy officer, Kate Davenport, told Grist this money has helped bump up the recycling rate for polypropylene packaging. She said polypropylene recycling has “needed a lot of investment,” although her organization also sees a need to reduce plastic production overall.

Starbucks is a founding partner of one of the Polypropylene Recycling Coalition’s steering committee members, the NextGen Consortium, and has donated millions of dollars to this organization to “explore the circularity” of polypropylene, among other objectives. The Starbucks spokesperson said the company would continue to fund these and similar efforts.

Starbucks declined to say whether it would eliminate additional forms of single-use plastic, like snack boxes and prepackaged beverages, or comment on whether the company would expand compostable cups nationwide.

Environmental advocates say Starbucks should eliminate nonrecyclable single-use plastic across the country, although Dell acknowledged that doing so could take some time due to supply chain delays and the vast number of stores — Starbucks is the second-largest restaurant chain in the world, after all. She called on the company to be more transparent about its plans, and to change in-store recycling bin labels to make it clear that only cans or plastic bottles — which are recycled at much higher rates than polypropylene cups — are accepted.

Ramsden said that, while compostable cups are a “step in the right direction,” Starbucks should place its focus on reusable containers whenever possible. “We need to move away from the single-use mindset, whether it’s plastic or aluminum or bioplastic containers, and move toward systems of refill and reuse.”

The two candidates for Los Angeles mayor, incumbent Karen Bass and challenger Nithya Raman, traded sharp jabs Wednesday night over homelessness, housing and police hiring in the first debate of the general election season.

The debate, hosted by the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association, came as both campaigns began ramping up door-to-door canvassing in a race that’s expected to be close.

Bass, who was elected mayor in 2022, finished five points ahead of Raman in June but is considered vulnerable with unfavorable ratings at 57% in a poll taken before the primary.

Homelessness

During the debate, Raman, who represents Council District 4, said Bass had not made enough progress on the No. 1 issue facing Los Angeles: homelessness.

“You’ve been the mayor for four years and the results have not changed — the results are visible on our streets,” Raman said.

The latest homeless count showed unsheltered homelessness rose 8% from January 2025 to January 2026. The increase followed a two-year drop of 17.5%.

Bass countered that her Inside Safe program has brought thousands of people off of the streets and pointed out Raman was head of the City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee until recently and therefore shared responsibility for the city’s progress on the issue.

“She has been the point person for homelessness — a very powerful position that she declared as powerful when she lost it,” Bass said.

Raman touted a 49% drop in unsheltered homelessness in her council district, which stretches from Silver Lake to Sherman Oaks.

Bass claimed Inside Safe was largely responsible for the drop.

If elected, Raman promised to conduct an audit of homelessness spending in her first six months of office and said she would fully staff a new Bureau of Homelessness Oversight to hold the city accountable for its spending on the issue.

Auditors have also flagged major problems with the handling of tax dollars by the regional L.A. Homeless Services Authority. The failures stem from poor bookkeeping and accounting of taxpayer money at the agency, which spent over $800 million in public funds last fiscal year.

Raman also promised to lobby L.A. County more forcefully than Bass for mental health, drug abuse and other social services for the unhoused.

Housing

The two also sparred over housing policy, with Raman saying the city needed more density in housing to address a severe shortage.

“This is a massive problem for the future of Los Angeles,” Raman said. “Let’s have a Planning Department that does the work to build these units, zone for these units.”

Raman said the city is “not zoned for more housing,” adding that’s why the state has stepped in with mandates for more dense housing in cities and counties across California.

Raman supported the law.

Bass opposed it.

“I do not support Sacramento telling us what to do,” Bass said. “The best way to build is to reach agreement with communities.”

Bass has billed herself as someone who would do more to preserve residential neighborhoods in the city and protect them from density. She added that 42,000 units of affordable housing were in the pipeline.

Policing

The two tangled over the hiring of police officers, too.

Bass pointed to a 2020 social media post by Raman that declared “defund the police.”

“She’s irresponsible in what she talks about,” Bass said.

Raman returned the verbal jab, arguing that Bass was irresponsible for backing a big raise for police officers in 2023.

“This is about fiscal management of public tax dollars,” Raman said. "This contract gave raises to the [Police Department] that our city couldn't afford and we suffered as a result.

”We cut street lighting, we cut pothole repair — we have more potholes on our streets than we did before," she continued. “We do less graffiti removal than we did before.”

Bass has said the raises were necessary to recruit new officers and keep current officers from leaving the department.

Raman also criticized Police Chief Jim McDonnell’s response to federal immigration raids, noting he refused to enforce a state law that largely prohibited federal agents from wearing masks. The council member said she didn’t believe the chief’s response to ICE raids “met the moment,” stopping short of saying whether she would seek to remove him.

Supporting business

Bass and Raman also fought over whether the city had sufficiently supported the entertainment industry.

“We need a tax credit and advocacy in Sacramento for the kind of tax credit that Georgia has, that’s the same as New Jersey has that’s taking jobs away from here,” Raman said.

Bass said she appointed a film czar to fight for such policies and criticized Raman for doing nothing on the issue.

“You have been on the City Council for six years,” Bass said. “You’ve been at City Hall twice as long as I have. I realize you want to pitch yourself as somebody from the outside. But where were you? You’ve introduced no motion for the entertainment industry.”

Bass said Raman would not be a good mayor because she lacks support from any of her colleagues on the City Council.

“She has no support from the council members because nobody can work with her,” Bass said.

Raman said she works well with colleagues and that Bass had locked up their endorsements before she made her last-minute entry into the race.

Five news reporters and two members of the military who were invited to an event at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California were briefly detained at gunpoint by security officers who thought they were gate crashers, according to local news reports.

The incident happened Monday ahead of an invitation-only groundbreaking for a new training facility for missile operators at the federal airfield near Santa Barbara, Calif. Reporters from Noozhawk and KEYT were among those detained, and both outlets published articles detailing the detainment.

In a statement to Noozhawk, a Space Launch Delta 30 Public Affairs spokesperson called the incident a breakdown in communication.

“Vandenberg Space Force Base is experiencing an increased number of unauthorized entry attempts,” the statement said. “Every potential unauthorized presence must be treated as a legitimate threat until proven otherwise. While we recognize this may have been unsettling, the security of the base and its personnel is our priority.”

The reporters and military members were part of a convoy being escorted onto the base by uniformed public affairs staff in a government minivan when they were suddenly ordered out of their vehicles with their hands up, according to news reports.

Officers pointed guns, sirens were sounded and barricades went up at the gate entrance, KEYT reported.

The two military members assigned to the base — one enlisted and one a junior officer — were handcuffed and placed in base vehicles, while the civilians were ordered to sit on a curb, Noozhawk reported.

The reporters for outlets also including KSBY-TV and the Santa Maria Times/Lompoc Record were held for more than 30 minutes, causing them to miss the event. All were let go without further incident.

“We respect the military’s need to provide security for the base,” Tom Bolton, Noozhawk’s editor in chief, said in a statement Wednesday. “But clearly what occurred was unfortunate and unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, as firearms were drawn.”

Bolton said he hopes to have a conversation with base leadership later this week to review what happened in the hopes of preventing a similar occurrence in the future.

As severe wildfires burn across the Western U.S., California has adopted the toughest rules in the country to help protect communities from burning. Homeowners in wildfire-prone areas will be required to limit plants within five feet of their house, a protective measure that wildfire experts say can help prevent homes from igniting.
Research shows that dry, dense vegetation around buildings can cause wildfires to spread. In extreme conditions, high winds carry a deluge of tiny, burning embers far beyond the fire itself. When those embers get caught in vegetation, they can ignite, spreading flames to nearby buildings and homes.
Wednesday's vote by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection comes after years of debate and delays. The state originally considered rules that would have restricted all vegetation within five feet of a house, aside from well-maintained trees. That generated pushback from some communities, concerned about losing greenery in their gardens and the cost of yard maintenance.
California regulators ultimately struck a compromise about plants allowed within the five-foot zone, known as Zone Zero. Lawns, flowers and non-woody plants up to 18 inches tall will be allowed, unless they are located directly under the roofline of a house. Trees will be allowed, though branches must be trimmed five feet away from a structure. The rules will apply to new construction right away, but will be phased in for existing structures, affecting almost 2 million homes in high-risk areas.

State regulators say the rules reflect the new reality of more extreme wildfires, driven in part by rising temperatures from climate change. More than 57,000 homes and buildings have been destroyed in California in the last decade, according to state regulators.

"California's faced an existential crisis that has affected our health, that has affected our finances related to our ability to buy and sell homes, to insure homes and has put us in a very precarious place," testified Yana Valachovic of the University of California Cooperative Extension at Wednesday's hearing, who also advised the state on the new rules.

Growing tensions across Western states

California's debate reflects growing tensions across the Western U.S. about how communities should prepare for wildfires. Wildfire experts warn even fires that start in open, wildland areas can quickly become urban fires, destroying thousands of homes in neighborhoods that residents never thought were at risk, like in the 2025 Los Angeles fires. This summer, more than 800 homes were destroyed in Spokane, Wash., by three wildfires that burned through dense neighborhoods.
Across several states, homeowners in public meetings have said wildfire regulations threaten private property rights, reduce urban wildlife habitat and require costly maintenance.
"You are about to approve a set of regulations that will cost millions of California homeowners tens of billions of dollars," testified Dave Lefkowitz, president of the Mandeville Canyon Association, a community group in the Los Angeles hills. "The math is insuperable."

Vegetation management rules were recently defeated in both Oregon and Washington after strong public pushback, including misinformation that spread online. Some community groups wanted regulators to wait for more scientific research on wildfire spread.

Research shows plants can increase risk

In experiments, researchers have shown that even green plants can ignite in the dry, windy conditions of an extreme wildfire. Analyses of past California wildfires have also shown that homes with vegetation predominantly within 6 feet of the exterior walls were at higher risk of being lost. Managing vegetation also creates "defensible space" for firefighters, providing better access for defending a structure.

California has long been at the forefront of wildfire policy, pioneering regulations that other states have adopted. For almost 20 years, California's wildfire building codes have required homes to use fire-resistant materials for construction. A handful of other states recently adopted similar codes. Research shows that while there are no guarantees a house will survive a fire, protections are strongest when homeowners address both building materials and vegetation. Even in some of the most severe wildfires in recent years, some homes made it through.
California regulators say the widespread regulations are needed because voluntary measures don't provide enough protection. Communities are safest when all homeowners comply, since one home with dense, dry vegetation can spread fire to its neighbors. Insurance companies in California are also required to provide discounts to homeowners that make their homes more fire-resistant.

New rules depend on inspections

While California's new rules provide more flexibility for homeowners, some wildfire experts say they don't go far enough, given that any combustible material next to a house could pose a risk. The new vegetation rules will be enforced by local fire departments and state agencies that do home inspections every year. Those inspectors will bear the brunt of educating homeowners and ensuring compliance.
"I want the board to understand what this compromise asks of local inspection programs," Todd Lando of the Central Marin Fire Department testified at the hearing. "A clean Zone Zero is a five-minute inspection with one question: Is anything combustible within five feet? Easy for the homeowner to understand and take action on." Lando says the new rules will involve more conditional judgements by inspectors, opening up debate with homeowners that could affect compliance.

California regulators say inspectors will focus on educating homeowners at first, before compliance becomes mandatory. For existing homes, the new vegetation rules will go into effect in 2029 at the earliest.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Clemente Larraín, a doctoral student from Chile, chose his program at UCLA because it offered subsidized childcare on campus. His young daughter was enrolled for free, giving him the peace of mind to focus on his studies.

Now, the university has thrown a wrench in those plans.

In an email to families enrolled in UCLA’s Early Care and Education program, Darnell Hunt, executive vice chancellor and provost, announced two university-run childcare centers will close at the end of the 2026-27 academic year because the university has determined “the program is not sustainable.”

“ For international students, this is the worst news because we don't have networks here," Larraín said. "We don't have family. Some of us have some friends, but not too close to just trusting them to our kids.”

He earns around $3,000 a month working on campus, which he said barely covers his rent, forcing the family to dig into savings. Meanwhile, his wife is waiting for a work permit so she can start to bring in additional income.

Having to find full time care for their daughter is causing immense stress.

“ This obviously changed radically the experience of the graduate students with family at UCLA,” Larraín said.

Limited childcare options for parents

The announcement comes as a changing landscape is making it harder for parents to find childcare across California. A new report by the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at UC Berkeley found that the rollout of a new grade for 4-year-olds in the state’s public schools is having unintended consequences for childcare businesses. Those businesses have typically cared for children 5 and under but are now losing more children to transitional kindergarten.

Between 2019 and 2025, about 1,100 preschools have closed across California.

Evyn Lê Espiritu Gandhi, an associate professor of Asian American studies at UCLA, has two children enrolled in a UCLA-run childcare center, which she said costs her around $6,000 a month — and that’s at a subsidized rate.

“Having a high-quality, safe, reliable childcare option for my children just allows me to do my job as a UCLA professor, which includes research and publishing, but also teaching and mentorship of undergraduate and graduate students,” Gandhi said. “I'm really not sure how I'll be able to do that job if I don't have adequate childcare next year.”

Gandhi said the only alternative she has for her daughter is Bright Horizons Westwood, which is part of a large chain of childcare facilities across the U.S.

“ But to be honest it doesn't have as good of a kind of teacher-child ratio as [UCLA's Early Care and Education] does, and it has a super long wait list,” she said.

LAist has reached out to the childcare facility to ask about its waitlist, teacher-child ratio and rates.

Earlier this year, Gandhi said, tuition at UCLA’s Early Care and Education program increased by 4%, Gandhi said. At the time, UCLA also announced it would eliminate “all food program services (which includes all meals, baby formula and food, milk and snacks), discontinuing support for diapers and formula, not backfilling vacant positions, and other cost reducing measures.”

After families protested, the university backed down.

‘Disconnected from its mission’

Yvonne Yang, an assistant clinical professor at UCLA in psychiatry, called it "callous and heartless," even "cruel" that the university decided to close down the childcare centers.

“It means to me that the university has completely become disconnected from its mission and basically lost its soul and is focusing only on profits,” said Yang, who is also a physician and researcher at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center.

Yang said she’s now competing with all the families enrolled in the UCLA program for the limited childcare options available on the west side.

 ”When our kids were young and still breastfeeding, moms are welcome to just walk up to the daycare and to feed our kids during the workday, which is so much better than having to pump,” she said. “It's just a way of maintaining that connection with your kids so early in that transition.”

Having the childcare center on campus allowed her to integrate having a family life and being a professor, she said.