EXPANDING the BOTTLE BILL would end roadside litter, reduce municipal waste costs and much else.
Isn't it time for Beacon Hill to listen to their constituents? Or will Beacon Hill's abdication force this issue to a ballot vote?
Bottle bill expansion subject of hearing on Beacon Hill
Richard Sullivan, secretary of energy and environmental affairs in Massachusetts, testified in support of bills that would expand the state's bottle deposit law to include more beverage containers. (Dan Ring/The Republican)
BOSTON - A dispute over an effort to expand the state's bottle deposit law took center stage on Beacon Hill on Tuesday.
With a possible ballot question looming, a key legislative panel heard testimony from leaders on both sides of the long debate.
During a hearing at the Statehouse in Boston by the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, advocates said an expansion of the bottle deposit law would improve the environment, save money on trash collection for cities and towns and raise more money for recycling for the state, which retains money from unclaimed bottle and can deposits.
Richard K. Sullivan Jr., of Westfield, the state's secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said an enhanced bottle deposit law would be even more effective in reducing litter. Sullivan said the current law reduces litter by prompting a higher recycling rate.
Sullivan said there are currently about 1.5 billion bottles and cans sold in the state that don't require the nickel deposit. If the law were expanded, it would increase the recycling rate of these "non-deposit bottles" from less than 30 percent to 80 percent.
"That means a lot less trash in public places," Sullivan said.
Christopher Flynn
A couple of bills would expand the 1983 bottle 5-cent deposit law, which currently includes carbonated beer, soda and malt beverages.
If approved, the bills would widen the law to include water, tea, fruit and coffee drinks as well as sports drinks such as Gatorade.
The hearing occurred two weeks after Attorney General Martha Coakley approved a proposed ballot question to expand the bottle deposit law.
In a key step to make next year's statewide ballot, proponents of the question must gather and file the signatures of 68,911 registered voters by Dec. 4.
Opponents said the proposed expansion would raise costs for consumers, hurt small businesses and result in only small gains in recycling.
Christopher P. Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association, which includes supermarkets and grocery stores, said he was strongly opposed to expansion of the bottle deposit law.
"This is an ill-advised time to be adding additional burdens on consumers, particularly when it will hurt business, impact good-paying jobs in Massachusetts and produce very minimal gains in increased recycling," Flynn testified.
Flynn and other business leaders said they supported bills by Rep. John Binienda, a Worcester Democrat, and Sen. Michael O. Moore, a Millbury Democrat, which would create one penny fee on beverage containers that would be paid by distributors and wholesalers. The new fee would raise $33 million a year for new recycling initiatives.
Under the bill, the existing 5-cent bottle deposit would be eliminated as of July 1.
According to Moore, the state last year made $25 million on bottle deposits that were not redeemed by consumers. The state retains money from unclaimed bottle and can deposits.
Bill Vernon, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said expansion of the bottle deposit law would effectively be a tax increase on consumers.
Karen Heymann, legislative director of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, said that under the existing bottle deposit law, nearly 70 percent of the bottles it covers are redeemed for recycling. Of the bottles that are not redeemed, only about 20 percent are recycled.
"However, since the bottle bill’s creation, the popularity of options like bottled water, fruit juices, and sports drinks has increased significantly while redemption programs have continued to exclude them," she testified. "Our legislation must be updated to incorporate these additional beverages into the nickel deposit system. Surveys show that over nearly 80 percent of Massachusetts’ voters support this update."
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/backers_opponents_clash_on_bea.html
With a possible ballot question looming, a key legislative panel heard testimony from leaders on both sides of the long debate.
During a hearing at the Statehouse in Boston by the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, advocates said an expansion of the bottle deposit law would improve the environment, save money on trash collection for cities and towns and raise more money for recycling for the state, which retains money from unclaimed bottle and can deposits.
Richard K. Sullivan Jr., of Westfield, the state's secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said an enhanced bottle deposit law would be even more effective in reducing litter. Sullivan said the current law reduces litter by prompting a higher recycling rate.
Sullivan said there are currently about 1.5 billion bottles and cans sold in the state that don't require the nickel deposit. If the law were expanded, it would increase the recycling rate of these "non-deposit bottles" from less than 30 percent to 80 percent.
"That means a lot less trash in public places," Sullivan said.
Christopher Flynn A couple of bills would expand the 1983 bottle 5-cent deposit law, which currently includes carbonated beer, soda and malt beverages.
If approved, the bills would widen the law to include water, tea, fruit and coffee drinks as well as sports drinks such as Gatorade.
The hearing occurred two weeks after Attorney General Martha Coakley approved a proposed ballot question to expand the bottle deposit law.
In a key step to make next year's statewide ballot, proponents of the question must gather and file the signatures of 68,911 registered voters by Dec. 4.
Opponents said the proposed expansion would raise costs for consumers, hurt small businesses and result in only small gains in recycling.
Christopher P. Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association, which includes supermarkets and grocery stores, said he was strongly opposed to expansion of the bottle deposit law.
"This is an ill-advised time to be adding additional burdens on consumers, particularly when it will hurt business, impact good-paying jobs in Massachusetts and produce very minimal gains in increased recycling," Flynn testified.
Flynn and other business leaders said they supported bills by Rep. John Binienda, a Worcester Democrat, and Sen. Michael O. Moore, a Millbury Democrat, which would create one penny fee on beverage containers that would be paid by distributors and wholesalers. The new fee would raise $33 million a year for new recycling initiatives.
Under the bill, the existing 5-cent bottle deposit would be eliminated as of July 1.
According to Moore, the state last year made $25 million on bottle deposits that were not redeemed by consumers. The state retains money from unclaimed bottle and can deposits.
Bill Vernon, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said expansion of the bottle deposit law would effectively be a tax increase on consumers.
Karen Heymann, legislative director of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, said that under the existing bottle deposit law, nearly 70 percent of the bottles it covers are redeemed for recycling. Of the bottles that are not redeemed, only about 20 percent are recycled.
"However, since the bottle bill’s creation, the popularity of options like bottled water, fruit juices, and sports drinks has increased significantly while redemption programs have continued to exclude them," she testified. "Our legislation must be updated to incorporate these additional beverages into the nickel deposit system. Surveys show that over nearly 80 percent of Massachusetts’ voters support this update."
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/backers_opponents_clash_on_bea.html
No comments:
Post a Comment