Halfway through my ride into work today (route above) I started counting littered non-deposit bottles versus deposit-redeemable soda cans and bottles. The results: 31 non-redeemable bottles vs. 5 redeemable cans*. If the expanded bottle bill passes, all 31 of the those currently non-redeemable pieces of litter would be redeemable.
The argument against expanding the bottle bill on the Secretary of State’s website says: “Let’s focus on what works instead of expanding an outdated, ineffective, and inconvenient system.” Based on my direct observation, the current system did not work well for plastic water bottles, but was more than six times as effective for redeemable soda cans and bottles.
If you’re unconvinced or undecided on the expanded bottle bill, I suggest taking a walk and counting for yourself.
*Of the 36 total pieces of litter, 35 were in separate locations, making them independent samples. Interestingly, the cans were all (flattened) beer cans, and all near BU, indicating perhaps that saving beer cans for deposit redemption is not a high priority around campus.
Without knowing the overall percentages of non-redeemable and redeemable items in circulation, it is not possible to conclude whether your numbers tell the story you are implying they do. Simple probability.
Elmo, as of 2013, according to USA Today, Americans consume an average of 44 gallons of soda a year and 21 gallons of bottled water a year. So your point actually makes an even stronger case for an expanded bottle bill to include bottled water, because it is littered even more than proportionate to its percent circulation.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/11/water-americas-favorite-drink/1978959/
Nathan, question: how much of the trash was near the sports fields and associated parking lots near the Charles River? How much was near BU since you indicate the students have little respect for picking up their trash? I do a similar trash counting exercise as you (except I stop to pick up the trash) as I walk my dogs. A significant portion of the trash could be eliminated if the players, coaches, parents and friends cleaned up after themselves. I would also include they need to clean up the orange peels, the athletic tape, socks, coffee cups, food wrappers, etc. That is their responsibility for having the opportunity to use the public spaces.
The bill will not change the behavior of most trash throwers. I am against the bottle bill expansion because it inconveniences the many without effectively changing the behavior of the few.
Patrick, it was pretty evenly distributed. For example, there was quite a bit along the Leo Birmingham Parkway, which is not really near an athletic field.
A couple other points: the few whose behavior it changes are the ones who lose the deposit. And the ones who probably most need the money, homeless collectors, will surely help to clean up these places. Finally, to the extent this law reduces overall consumption of bottled water versus tap water, that’s a good thing.
Nathan, if the state really wanted to create a jobs program for the homeless collectors, it would take the money currently not claimed by missing returnable bottles and pay people for bringing bags of all trash, not just selected items identified in the bill, to specific locations for proper disposal. How much general trash do you think is presently collected by homeless collectors? They must walk right by most trash to find the returnable bottles. Not an effective system for making the state cleaner. We already have such a program for minimum security prisoners working along our highways. Maybe some of these city, state and federal workers on paid administrative leave for disciplinary reasons could supervise the new workers.
Are you endorsing the state’s position of allowing tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, the use of medical marijuana but now you want to eliminate clean water consumption from pre-packaged individual bottles? There are plenty of cigarette packages and alcohol containers (the individual nip bottles and the cardboard/plastic six pack containers come to mind) lying on the ground near the returnable bottles/cans.
Until the state changes its policy and behavior regarding the non-claimed deposits, I can not support expanding their opportunity for grabbing additional money from the citizens.
Wow, I had no idea I was advocating all that. I’m just saying homeless people pick up litter if there is an incentive, and I think if there were, there wouldn’t be all those plastic bottles everywhere. You talked about two groups of people – the few litterers and all the others inconvenienced, but left out a group that will probably be affected by this law and have an impact on the litter.
And actually, I did see a lot of Dunkin Donuts plastic cups and would support an expansion of the deposit to cover that trash too. Same with the other trash you mentioned. Our current recycling programs are clearly not working to keep this litter off our streets and sidewalks.
One possible explanation
If stopping litter is the goal, the bottle bill should be limited to single use containers less than 1 liter. It would be less of a burden on businesses and the general public and probably result in just as much recycling.
@Adam: the question is targeted to containers under 1 litre.
You sure about that? I’ve just read the bill twice and don’t see any large container exemption.
Patrick for Governor!
Bruce, be careful what you wish for on V14; Deval may still be reading local blogs.
If the only rationale is that someone (homeless) people will pick up the litter for a nickle then we have some serious issues to address. I serve on the Board of a homeless shelter, and collecting cans/bottles is not on our list of revenue enhancing ideas.
This bill could pass but it is a redundant waste of recycling resources. I know many folks now that simply put their soda cans in the “green” bin.
There are still large numbers of folks that think nothing of littering. Recycle bins do nothing to help with that. There are still many communities whose recycling approaches ,eave a lot to be desired,
Perhaps there will come a day when such approaches as a battle deposit are not necessary, but that day is not here yet.
Dan, we do not need the bottle bill to clean up trash. We need to enforce the existing litter ordinances. A series of $50 fines to offenders will send a strong message without negatively impacting the compliant citizens.
In case some people thought I was proposing that the state actually initiate a trash cleanup program utilizing the homeless collector population, I was being facetious. That would add a level of accountability to that money that the people on Beacon Hill would never want. It would also probably mean that the state would need too pay minimum wages ($8.00 / hour) to the collectors. At a nickel per bottle it would take a lot of bottles to break even. I estimate it would be about 250 – 300 bottles/hour to cover the work time needed to collect, return to a central processing place and sort the returnables to make the hourly wage viable. And that is just looking at the wage cost; not the other program costs. That program would never see the light of day.
I disagree Patrick to the extent that we DONT enforce those laws so I stay in favor of something that works in large measure.
Dan with all due respect, are you really saying that since the state does not enforce one law, let’s expand another one to cover for the one that the state does not enforce?
Remove the law that the state does not want to enforce, and I may consider agreeing with the expanded bottle bill. Until then, I will be voting “no” next Tuesday on Question #2. No big deal; I am just one vote. There are plenty of people who agree with you.
It’s not jut the state that needs to enforce that law; cities and towns do too. And yes I am saying that law is probably unenforceable; there’s just too much littering occurring when no officials are around to catch them. And so we DO have lots of littering. and the bottle bill has helped contain that, and could do more so were more container types covered.