It’s an ironic routine that plays out nearly every day on streets throughout the state, in which a law designed to reduce litter ends up producing it.
Because the state’s bottle law has not been updated in more than 30 years to allow noncarbonated beverages to be redeemed for a nickel, as it allows for soda, beer, and malt beverages, the legion of trash pickers who make their rounds to collect bottles and cans often toss the bottled water, Gatorade, and other containers not covered by the law into the street.
Comments
The nickel deposit is not a tax. If one chooses to litter, it is a self-imposed fine for each bottle tossed. The first bottle bill works well, as will the expanded bottle bill. ...........................One has to wonder just what lobbyists are influencing those legislators who are on the fence and what the form of that influence might be.
*********************From Globe, July 24------"The bill, called a tax by opponents, has the strong support of the Patrick administration, which says the STATE WOULD RAISE ABOUT $58 MILLION by allowing redemption of an additional 1.5 billion containers a year, about $20 million more than under current law. ....."The money is raised because people do not bother to recycle their bottles. ANYTHING that raises revenue, isn't that another name for taxes, $58 MILLION is a tax by ANY NAME!!!!!!!!!! The money is raised because people do not go to the redemption sites and redeem the nickle tax they paid when they bought the drink. REVENUE IS THE REAL REASON BEHIND THIS BILL.
'Irony' is that this is veiled as an environmental measure, yet advocates for those who go through RECYCLING bins to obtain containers and then redeem them. Municipal recycling throughout Massachusetts is broadly available -- the most impactful thing the state & beverage industry could do is implement programs, incentives to encourage local (curbside) recycling. This blows-away any improvement that an expansion of the bottle bill could ever achieve. The bottle bill is un-environmental as it encourages residents to drive their cars, and beverage companies to drive their trucks on extra trips to redemption centers to handle containers that could just be included with all recycling at home.
its a tax, and most people who don't redeem their tax deposit, usually properly recycle these containers along with other plastic, glass etc.So its not a litter law. The "pickers" I see in Boston go through the curbside trash awaiting pick up and often open bags for bottles etc and leave a mess behind. Repealing the bottle law might cause some loss of income to "pickers" but not likely affect litter and return money to consumers.....since when is a bottle law a transfer payment scheme?
People need to read between the lines here. If this bill pass plastic that currently do not have a 5 cent deposit charge will now have a deposit charge. People who go through your trash and recycling will continue to do so and they will now make more money. You the consumer will now pay 5 cents more for bottles that previously did not have a deposit. This all about added revenue for the state, masked as a way to help the little guy who lives off bottle redemptions.
This is nothing more that a tax in disguise for the hard working citizens of the Commonwealth. This is supported by the fact that surplus deposits $$ are always planned for in the state budget and I am sure the additional $20 million surplus from water bottles... has already affected budget planning. Aside from the financial implications, this method of encouraging recycling has to be one of the most illogical and inefficient ways to effectively promote recycling. It is a major hassle to return bottles and cans, so I never do it. Yes, I do recycle all these products at my local transfer station. This is still a major hassle, but at least I do not have to make many stops. If the legislature insists on thinking bottles deposits are the solution, at least make all surplus deposits support curbside recycling programs, recycling receptacles for town centers, educations efforts to encourage recycling, and to discourage purchase of products that carry a deposit. Not one penny of the surplus should go to anything but recycling implementation, education, and outreach. That may be a solution I can support.
I don't mean to sound cold but I don't think helping the fortunes of those who collect bottles and cans for money or those who run redemption centers is a good reason for passing this bill. If you go back 30 years ago when the bill was enacted there wasn't anything close to the recycling efforts that are in place today. How many of these bottles and cans are put in recycling bins versus landfills? Recycling has worked and none of the proponents want to admit it. A recent story said that Governor Patrick was in favor of the bill being widened as it would add an additional $20 million to the state's coffers. Do we really need another "tax" that transfers money from the average consumer to the state, bottle collectors and redemption centers? Where do we draw the line? Why not assess a deposit on everything that comes in a bottle or can? Enough!!
So littering is the only other option if you don't bring the bottle back for your nickel? You seem to be dismissing all the recycling that goes on. I live in the city and I don't see plastic bottles everywhere. They tend to go into the recycling receptacles that are widely available.
The benefit would be to discourage use of water bottles and encourage more people to refill their own bottles. If you want the convenience of a new bottle which consumes more energy than reusing, then I have no problem with people paying for that "convenience". Over time, people will come to realize that reusing their own bottles are even more convenient because you don't have to take a stop at a store. I'm sure the water and juice companies are doing everything they can to bribe our elected officials and "educate" them with their skewed facts of why it's best not to have a deposit.