Here’s the next in our series of Village 14 Blog polls related to the question on the Nov. 4 statewide ballot.
Question two would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law, also known as the Bottle Bill, to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic non-carbonated drinks in liquid form intended for human consumption, except beverages primarily derived from dairy products, infant formula, and FDA approved medicines. The proposed law would not cover containers made of paper-based biodegradable material and aseptic multi-material packages such as juice boxes or pouches.
There’s a lot more to the proposed law. Go here to read the full proposal and arguments.
[polldaddy poll=”8382479″]
Instead of repealing the whole early 1980s idea of a recycling plan where one type of recyclable gets handed off to various third parties, driven hundreds of miles, etc, and finally meets up with the other recyclables we threw in our green barrel, we want to expand the old plan? That makes no sense. Let’s follow those lost nickles (which the referendum now indexes) and see who’s keeping them.
I will be voting NO on Question 2. It’s a back-door tax increase, a $25 Million/year money grab by the state and a $60 Million/year increased cost burden for businesses.
I also agree with Hoss’s remarks about how inefficient the bottle bill is and that it makes no sense to expand the 1980s era bottle bill.
It’s like a Rube Goldberg machine where the idea is to deposit something in a bin that is right outside your door, yet the Goldberg process drives it to a store, uses a crushing machine, transports it over bridges in through tunnels, and it finally meets up with your Tide bottle and the one quart milk container.
Only this is a special edition Goldberg with works on nickles. Obviously nothing Goldberg would result in a direct impact do most of the nickles have nothing to do with recycling.
I will be voting Yes on 2 because while curb side recycling works here in Newton it is still very limited around the state. Many lower income folks also depend on collecting bottles to either supplement or make up their income. The fact that the current deposit has stayed at $.05 for many years has really hurt those that truly depend on this income source. The bottle bill has been very successful in getting glass recycled and I am positive that putting a price on plastic will help increase those rates as well.
No it is not a tax, a tax is something you pay which may come back to you in the form of roads, education, fire etc. This can come back to you in cash when you return the bottles. I never make a special trip, always returning them to the store I got them from when I go shopping again. Or leave them at the curb on trash day for the various folks who come around collecting.
I will also say that curbside recycling while the number of people doing it is high, the actual amount that gets recycled is low, due to contamination (trash) etc. By returning for a deposit that material (currently glass and large plastic bottles) goes to the recycling facilities with little contamination allowing for a better recycling rate.
There are lots of ways to increase recycling, this is a reasonably straight forward one I think.
I’m with @John on this one. More than 80% of bottles with deposits are redeemed or recycled, compared with fewer than 23% of bottles without deposits. It is easy to see this in the litter around us – lots of water bottles, juice & energy drink bottles… very few soda cans or bottles, bc people have an economic incentive to pick them up. It is NOT a tax, bc try getting your tax returned to you, whereas if you bring the bottles/cans back to the store, you get your 5 cents back.
The bottle bill is certainly outdated, and I while obsess about recycling, but I don’t think I’ll be voting for this measure. For many people who don’t bother returning containers (5¢ just isn’t what it used to be) it is indeed a tax, and if policies were used to benefit the public, like targeting bottled water or small, single use containers — the ones least environmentally sound and least likely to get recycled and end up as litter — I’d be all for it.
And, to make things a bit more interesting, there’s a clause in here that sounds a lot like the gas tax which I do strongly support as necessary to support our transportation infrastructure:
For years I’ve been among those who supported the expansion of the bottle bill for all the reasons supporters cite — and most notably because it should reduce litter.
But I’ve changed my mind.
For starters, I agree with Hoss when he outlines the ridiculous journey a deposit container must make compared to my placing it into a green bin. Not enough green bins in our parks and village centers? Then let’s make that the focus of our efforts. Not all communities have good curbside recycling? I’ll gladly sign the petition mandating that.
But all that aside, Adam cites the other significant reason why this is a bad law. Here it is again…
Conceivably that means in five years we might have, say, an eight cent bottle deposit or twelve cent deposit? So a bottle of apple juice at the vending machine might cost, what, $1.37? So now you won’t just need quarters, you’ll need pennies?
That’s just silly.
I agree with John and Emily.
And please note that the small $.05 deposit, which is unchanged from the outset, hasn’t deterred the continued effectiveness of the bottle bill, if the 80% number tells us anything.
It i true that single stream recycling has had a positive impact, but until its more pervasive, expanding the bottle bill makes good sense.
if curbside is so effective, why is the recycling rate on water bottles less than 25 % and the recycling rate rate on deposit beverage containers THREE time as high ???
The deposit is the key that not only increases recycling , but virtually eliminates beverage litter.
Expanding the bottle bill is a WIN WIN vote yes
This is a terribly inefficient way to promote recycling. For those of us who religiously use the kerbside recycling program, it’s a 5 cents-per-container cost burden — whether or not you calling it a tax is mere semantic quibbling — and for businesses who have to pay for recycling machines, find space for them, pay someone to empty them and deal with the litter that builds up around them, it’s an even greater cost burden.
Emily and John, can you provide citations for your assertions about the ineffectiveness of kerbside recycling due to contamination on the one hand, and the effectiveness of the deposit system on the other hand?
bob gee — Are you suggesting someone is counting pepsi bottles separate from poland spring as the recycle belt zooms along?? Of course not. What you’re observing is some people want nickles enough to drive to a store to retrieve them (sending recyclables into an unneeded transfer and miles of extra travel). When the iron futures got very high we saw people taking manholes and pipes to the recycle plant. We can accomplish a lot of unnecessary maneuvering and stupid deeds with offers of cash. Let’s us the nickles we got now to expand modern recycling plans, not expand the old plan knowing how many of those nickles get pocketed at the state level.
@Robert W: MassDEP commissioned study
@Greg: At inflation of 1.5%/year, in five years that compounds to a 7.7% gain, so the $0.05 deposit of today would still be $0.05 (i.e., $0.538 but rounded to nearest cent). You would need inflation of 1.92% compounding for 5 years to increase the $0.05 to $0.055, which would be rounded up to $0.06.
@Emily: OK but that doesn’t change the basic problem with this provision. A six cent bottle deposit? The law should have never been written this way.
Way back before the original bottle bill there was a recycling program that actually was more efficient that what we have today. The milk delivery would take back the bottles, the liquor store would take the large beer bottles (bar bottles) and many local soda companies would take their branded bottles back. This was a wash and reuse program. Fast tracking to today, we got an home sourced recycling program that adds value to containers in that they no longer needs to be used for their original purpose, they can be used for many, many things including athletic playing fields and landing surfaces for swing sets. Yet we continue to connect the distributor with something (as we did in 1980) that a trash pickup company now does so much more efficiently, all because of those lost nickles. It’s the lost dollars that we love the lottery so much, so no wonder we can’t let go!
I’m stunned to see that I am in agreement with Greg Reibman & Hoss on this thread.
However, I’m happy to see it.
Another reason why I oppose the bottle bill expansion: In the original bottle bill, there was a Clean Environmental Fund, however Beacon Hill raided the fund and now the unclaimed deposits go to the General Fund. There is no need to give Beacon Hill bureaucrats another $25 Million annually for another slush fund.
Sorry Josh, but we’re not in agreement. You oppose it because it’s a tax. I oppose it because I think there are better, more environmentally sound ways to adress this in 2014.
Joshua Norman — A conservative named Barbara Andersen came to Massachusetts back about 40 years ago an sold us a tax indexing concept originating from Calif. which we call Prop 2 1/2. That was an era where inflation was high into the double digits. Now where inflation is lower, Newton Democrats are now loving the indexing concept. What they aren’t anticipating is that with a return of double digit inflation, the $4 case of Poland Spring for the kid’s lunch which will be $5.20 post expanded bottle bill, could soon be twice that.
@greg reibman – I think thats the silliest argument I’ve heard yet. If you run coke machines today, the price to the consumer isn’t a round $1.00 because either the amount you pay per bottle or the deposit is an even multiple of 5 or 10. If the price per bottle or the deposit ends in 7, dont worry the price at the machine will still be a multiple of .25.
Hoss, the bottle re-use that used to happen is great- they still do beer that way in Amsterdam – and if the industry is so concerned about this bottle bill, nothing stops them from reinstating these programs. I’d be all for it.
On your other point about the expense of bottled water: the more frugal and environmentally better option of course is to use our excellent Quabbin tap water and a reusable bottle.
Emily, thanks for the link to the study, but I don’t see where there is any mention of recycling rates for deposit vs. non-deposit containers. Instead we get some rather unsurprising conclusions:
* Cleanups of public areas have a higher ratio of non-deposit containers compared with what is sold.
* Ball fields and public parks have lots of discarded water and sports drink bottles compared with soda and beer containers.
.
I will be voting “yes” on Question Two. We can and must do a better job of recycling. Newton’s recycling rate has remained stagnant despite the convenience of curbside, which by the way is not the best way to recycle. Single stream degrades the quality and marketability of what actually gets recycled.
According to information from the MA DEP the total MA recycling rate hovers at about 47%. An update bottle bill would certainly improve these figures. In fact, no other program can match the bottle bill’s recycling rate, which hovers around 80%.
What is troubling is that many communities have much lower recycling rates. In 2012, The Boston Globe reported that despite tens of millions of dollars spent, a raft of new programs, and the availability of curbside recycling to nearly everyone, the City of Boston recycled only 19% of all residential garbage, about 30,000 tons.
As a result of the first statewide recycling program, 80% of bottles and cans covered under the current Bottle Bill are recycled instead of buried or burned. But the vast majority of the of non-deposit containers end up in our landfills, burned in incinerators or tossed in public spaces as litter.
This bill specifies that the money collected from the unclaimed deposits would set up a Clean Environment Fund, and used to support programs such as the proper management of solid waste, water resource protection, parkland, urban forestry, air quality and climate protection.
The bottlers and supermarkets who fund the “No on 2” ads (to the tune of nearly $8 million) support a repeal of the Bottle Bill program altogether with efforts focused on boosting curbside recycling as a way to reduce waste going into landfills. But this self serving approach pushes much of the responsibility onto communities, rather than sharing the costs of disposal with the producers, and retailers who sell them. In store collection is intended to complement, rather than replace, curbside recycling. Having both programs is proven to work to maximize recycling efforts.
According to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), an updated bottle bill would save communities between $4.2 and $6.9 million annually in litter abatement, avoided collection, and disposal/recycling costs
I see the expanded Bottle Bill as working very similarly to the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR); lets include the integration of environmental costs associated with goods throughout their life cycles, including disposal costs, into the market price of the products. We have to move in this direction. Ultimately, landfills fill up, and it’s tough to site new/expand trash incineration.
Expanding the bottle bill makes no sense to me.
Currently, I recycle 100% of water, alcohol, juice bottles via the curbside recycling program. Voting for this would mean I would have to take those bottles out of the green bin and (in my case) drive them to Needham to the closest store that accepts returns. Once there, I invariably run into two more hurdles:
1) a machine that is full and won’t accept returns
2.) the store doesn’t accept certain of my returns for some reason
Many of the above refused returns just go in the trash. So I not only waste gas, but end up recycling less.
The current system is horrible and almost seems designed to discourage returns (and thereby increase deposits kept). Why would we want more of that?
There have to be better ways to improve recycling than that.
I’m convinced Newton will eventually have a refuge collection fee similar to other municipalities around Mass. (From my observation, that charge is about $300/year in other cities/towns) The simple reality is that recycling income that the city gets will dissolve over time as recycling rates increase throughout the Northeast. Under that state, if a pay $1.20 deposit for a case of something, then do the environmentally sound thing of using the recycle bin and not subjecting the stuff to an unneeded travel and labor cycle, I will have paid at least twice for the same recycling process. A brilliant double dip.
@Anil. I know you and what you do for Newton so it comes as no surprise that you recycle everything possible and would never throw any kind of beverage container onto a street, sidewalk or field. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people are not as civic minded as you are and I’m impressed by the fact that having a deposit program in place seems to improve the overall level of recycling. Some of the logistical problems you list are real and this is far from a panacea for our recycling goals; but on the whole I’m inclined to give it a yes.
Thanks, Alison, your post was very helpful, but I remain skeptical
Those seem like different problems, potentially with different solutions. Is there a smarter way to do this? I don’t see many 64 oz juice containers lying around in public parks — I’m guessing they have a much higher recycling rate used at home or at a business — but I certainly do see those 8-12 oz water bottles everywhere. I’d love to see stats breaking down the problem further, if they exist. How much of the problem would be addressed by going after smaller, single-use containers, still placing that burden on the producers and retailers, even discouraging their use, which ought to be the primary goal for environmentalists. How likely would it be for 2 liter soda bottles to get recycled curbside without the current bottle bill?
Vote “NO” on this question because voting yes will only increase your level of misery. All of the great reasons to vote no have been listed and are exactly the reasons to squash a bad idea. The original bottle bill addressed an old problem that pre-dated municipal recycling programs. In 1982 beverage cans had recently replaced bottles, which were mostly returnable (milk, soda, beer), and lo and behold there was no viable way to recycle (a new concept then) the cans.
It was a great stop gap measure that had immediate economic benefits for those that would pick up the cans. The $.05 cents in 1982 was a large number considering a coke was probably still a quarter, and there was an incentive to return them.
Today we already pay for recycling so why would you pay a 2nd time? Also, what machine could be made to function (see Anil’s note) with such a huge variety of bottle sizes and structure. No label no nickle. Also, try bringing your cans to CVS? (again see Anil’s comment)
Just as in plastic bags (bring back to the store), the solution is in education and the promotion of the green bins.
Vote NO, be real do you want more regulations?
A good editorial in today’s Globe as to why a “YES” is warranged.
@Adam, your observation about the types of containers most frequently littered is borne out by the data. The Bottle Bill is especially effective reducing litter for the “on the go” drinks which tend to be smaller containers.
I haven’t seen any data that breaks down bottles and cans by size. In 2009 the DEP did a Community Cleanup Litter Study:
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/recycle/reduce/beverage-containers-litter-and-public-waste-receptacles.html
The Town of Concord did address this problem, in part by banning water bottles of 1 liter (34 ounces) or less.
@Jim, The Bottle Bill is the most effective tool we have to increase recycling rates. No other program can touch it. Why would we abandon a program that actually works? Our recycling rates here in Newton are NOT impressive. Our rate has remained stagnant despite curbside. Needham does much better than we do. They have close to an 80% recycling rate. Nantucket has a 90% recycling rate. These communities bring all their trash and recycling to the transfer station. And Nantucket has banned plastic bags since 1990.
Updating the Bottle Bill is just one tool. Statewide we could immediately cut our disposal rates in half by enforcing waste bans, extending PAYT and curbside programs. Going forward we need to add anaerobic digestion and extended producer responsibility programs
http://www.toxicsaction.org/sites/default/files/tac/information/garbage-and-recycling-in-massachusetts.pdf
The amount of plastic waste going into our environment and much of it ending up on our oceans is staggering. If we don’t start taking responsibility for it now, future generations will pay the price. That will be the real misery.
Voluntary programs don’t work. If they did we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Indeed, PAYT and the opportunity to recycle at transfer stations (presumably part of the erroneous 90% “curbside” figure) likely have far greater impact than curbside collection — a point that the very lame Boston Globe editorial misses entirely.
I wish I could find it, but there was an excellent NPR program a few years ago on packaging and the relative costs of different materials on the environment. It’s really the smaller containers that are to blame, not just for litter, but because they require more material compared to buying in bulk. Plastics, even when recycled, have a huge cost to the environment relative to other materials. Good policies would take all these things into account.
I recall a social movement (in Germany?) to strip packaging and leave it at the store, which sends the message and costs back upstream. Here’s another innovative approach:
http://weburbanist.com/2014/06/10/unverpacked-zero-waste-grocery-store-packages-no-products/
Thanks Jim – VOTE NO! Too bad we don’t have more Common Sense BOA like you.