The arguments of Opponents of the Expanded Bottle Bill make little sense.
PLEASE VOTE YES!
Many people seem to agree that more recycling is needed.
But the proposed expansion of the state "bottle bill" creates a split over how to go about it.
Question 2 on the Nov. 4 state election ballot is an initiative petition to expand the state's 1983 beverage container deposit law.
As the law stands, consumers pay a 5-cent deposit when they buy a carbonated soft drink, mineral water or beer. Then, to encourage recycling of the drink container, the consumer can receive the 5 cents back when the emptied container is returned to the store or a redemption center.
The empty container is eventually returned to the beverage distributing or bottling company for recycling. If the consumer doesn't claim the 5 cents by recycling the container, the retailer sends the outstanding 5 cents back to the distribution or bottling company, which turns it over to the state for use in the general fund.
The groups who support Question 2 say that this method has led to about 80 percent of the containers covered under the bottle bill to be recycled. In turn, the groups say, adding more liquid drinks — and more containers — to the bill would further increase the recycling rate and also find a more specific environmentally focused use for the unclaimed nickel deposits.
The proposal would add nonalcoholic, noncarbonated drinks such as water, juices, iced teas and sports drinks. Dairy products, infant formula, medicine and juice boxes and pouches would not be included.
Over the past several years, 210 of the state's 351 towns and cities have passed resolutions in support of policies similar to what is proposed in Question 2, according to Janet Domenitz, executive director of Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group.
"It costs cities and towns money to pick up the litter," Domenitz said, referring to unreturned containers that end up along the sides of roads or in household trash. "It costs cities and towns to cart the trash. It costs them to dispose of the trash."
The proposed expansion of the bottle bill also includes an increase in the per-container fees that bottlers and distributors pay to a retailer or redemption center as part of the handling of the emptied containers from the consumer.
"Businesswise, obviously, it would be good for me," Dennis White, owner of L&B Redemption Center in Buzzards Bay, said Thursday. The center is registered with the state Department of Environmental Protection and redeems empty beverage containers under the state bottle bill. White, who also owns the Liquor Barn next door to the redemption center, said he would likely need to hire another person to handle the additional containers but is comfortable with the current size of his business.
"I also have young kids who are growing up in the world," White said. "It's more personal. Water bottles and energy drinks are a big factor. How long does it take for those to disintegrate? Where does it go?"
Opponents of Question 2 contend that the bottle bill is an antiquated system that doesn't take into account the increase in curbside recycling and newer technology. Adding more eligible containers to the bottle bill would cost grocers and other retailers at least $60 million, according to Nicole Giambusso, spokesperson for NoOnQuestion2.com.
Grocery stores are required by the bottle bill to act as redemption centers, and those businesses would now be required to add more or different machines or more staff, given the new sizes and shapes of the containers, Giambusso said. That means an increase in staffing, resources and time.
The issues of sanitation around the handling of the containers would increase as well.
"Question 2 would add costs for grocers that would be passed down to consumers, and not just for beverages," Giambusso said. "Groceries as a whole would get more expensive."
Opponents to Question 2 favor more investment in curbside recycling, saying that the cost per ton is cheaper and more convenient than consuming a beverage, driving the empty can to the grocery store and feeding it into a reverse vending machine to get a nickel deposit back.
"Convenience works," Giambusso said.
Nauset Disposal owner Shawn DeLude in Orleans agrees.
"Instead of focusing on trying to manipulate people to recycle at a facility, why not use that money to try to educate people to recycle overall?" DeLude said Thursday. DeLude, who is opposed to Question 2, runs a business that offers curbside pickup of recycling for businesses, homeowners and condo associations.
DeLude said he is encouraging all his customers to vote against Question 2 and called the bottle redemption system a "dead horse."
The primary need is to get more recyclables out of the solid waste stream, DeLude said. Many of his customers do not do any form of recycling. Raising awareness of the need for business and household recycling through education would allow haulers to operate more efficiently, and pass that savings on to customers, he said.
Also, facilities are needed on Cape Cod to handle commercial recycling, he said. "It's all handled off-Cape."
In Falmouth, Selectman Mary Pat Flynn, board chairman, uses the bottle redemption system now, and supports the expansion to include more types of beverages. At the same time, she supports the curbside recycling that the town offers.
"If you choose not to take them back, you can put it in your recycling box," Flynn said. "Most people I know take them back. I take mine back. If I had water bottles, I would take them back."
No comments:
Post a Comment