Statement by Mayor Thomas M. Menino on Committee Approval of Expanded Bottle Bill

“For years, I have proposed legislation to close the loophole in the Bottle Bill to promote recycling efforts and help keep our neighborhoods clean. Today, the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy took an important step in advancing legislation that will expand the definition of beverage containers to include water bottles and sports drinks.

When the Bottle Bill became law in 1982, no one could have predicted the huge increase in consumption of bottled water and sports drinks. Today, these containers often litter our streets, business districts and parks. This legislation gives us a real opportunity to prevent litter while saving important municipal resources spent on trash collection.

I applaud the Committee for moving this bill forward. I also want to thank East Boston Representative Carlo Basile for working with me on this legislation and for being a strong voice for Boston residents on this Committee. There are countless environmental groups, legislators and communities committed to this issue, and I look forward to continuing our work together to get this bill passed.”

###

Big Push at the State House for Updated Bottle Bill

In a dramatic show of support, over 150 people showed up at the State House today, despite 90 degree heat, in an event organized to call on the Legislature to pass the Updated Bottle Bill. The bill (H3515/S1480) would increase recycling of beverage containers and reduce litter in ballfields, parks, streets, and waterways. The crowd included over a dozen legislators, from both sides of the aisle, who have become restless for movement on the bill as the end of the legislative session, scheduled for July 31, draws closer.

Representative Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge), the lead sponsor of the bill, led off the event by saying, “This bill is win/win/win/win -- good for the environment, good for bringing in revenue to the state, good for saving cities and towns money, and good for reducing litter.” The original Bottle Bill, enacted in 1983, stands as the most effective recycling program in the state, with over 70% of containers redeemed and an additional 10% recycled. The update would extend the nickel deposit to vitamin drinks, water bottles, iced teas, and many juices, only 20% of which are currently recycled.

“This measure not only makes sense to increase recycling, but it will save cities and towns precious dollars in waste collection and disposal costs,” said Tom Philbin, Legislative Director of the Mass Municipal Association. “In crunched budget times like these, we simply cannot ignore this opportunity.”

The coalition pushing for the measure includes over fifty organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the Environmental League of MA, the Charles River Conservancy, MassRecycle, Surfrider Foundation, and many more. James McAffrey, director of the Sierra Club of MA, remarked, “This is not just an environmental issue, it’s also about jobs, the economy and millions for the state budget. This is an issue of common sense.”

While the standard deadline for bills to move out of their first committee comes in mid-March, this bill’s progress was stalled until July 14, a date which strikes supporters as arbitrary, late in the session, and frustrating for the public, which strongly favors updating the bottle bill.

“In the spirit of Independence Day, we call on the leadership of the Legislature to free this bill and bring it to a vote, letting the democratic process unfold as it should,” said Janet Domenitz, Executive Director of MASSPIRG.

###

Note: View video from the event here: http://vimeo.com/album/252646

Op-Ed: What’s the difference between a deposit and a tax?

Now that you've just paid your taxes, raise your hand if you know the difference between a tax and a deposit.

If you overpaid, or had a really bad year, you may be getting a refund on the taxes you had withheld. But the government usually keeps most of it, and we have no recourse. It’s our mandatory contribution to the Commonwealth and the country.

On the other hand, if you bought a case of beer, nobody can stop you from getting back the nickel deposit you paid on each container, if only you bring it back from whence it came. If you drink beer regularly, it’s a pretty good bet that you’ll be going back there anyway.

The government doesn’t require you to either buy the beer or return the containers. You have freedom of choice on both counts. You may also choose to donate the containers to a good cause, such as the Boy Scouts, or the school music program. You can even put them in the trash or drop them on the ground. With a nickel value, you can go to sleep that night knowing that someone else might pick them up and redeem them.

The Bottle Bill is the single most successful recycling program in the state. About 80% of containers covered by the deposit are redeemed or recycled. On the other hand, nearly 80%of containers without a refundable deposit on them are wasted in the trash, or littered.

Opponents of updating the 27-year-old Bottle Bill (to add water, sports drinks, ice tea and juices), including Coke, Pepsi and other big special interests don’t have good arguments to block this, so they try to confuse the issue by equating the refundable deposit on their beverage containers with a tax. They say that waste should go in your home recycling bin. But the opponents seem to forget that Massachusetts citizens have been putting down deposits on bottles for 27 years, and they understand fully the difference between a tax and a deposit.

The truth is most of the bottlers’ products are consumed away from home, in public spaces where recycling containers are hard to find and manage. Your local property taxes pay for your municipality to clean up and dispose of downtown, ball field, beach, and school trash. You have very little control over this cost.

You are already paying a tax to manage the beverage containers that don’t have refundable deposits. It’s time to let our legislators know that we understand the difference between a tax and a refundable deposit.

Tax: [tæks]

1. n. An amount of money that you have to pay to the government so that it can pay for public services.

Deposit: [di-poz'-it]

1. n. A sum of money which you pay when you start renting something. The money is returned to you if you do not damage it.

We truly hope that this has helped clarify any misconceptions that are out there, and that the legislature will move quickly to pass the Updated Bottle Bill (H3515/S1480), which has been pending for more than several legislative sessions and is widely supported by the public of Massachusetts.

Phillip Sego, Massachusetts Sierra Club

Claire Sullivan, MassRecycle, South Shore Recycling Coop

Curbside vs. the Bottle Bill?

Too often in the discussion about expanding the bottle bill, I have heard references to curbside recycling, either that the bottle bill will hurt curbside recycling (which we have already chatted about and I don't want to re-hash here), or that we don't need the bottle bill because we have curbside recycling and can just improve that.

In response to that myth, I would urge all of you to look at the 2008 DEP solid waste generation figures just released. Only 40% of the MSW in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is generated from Residential sources. Let me repeat that. Over half and almost 2/3 of the MSW generated in Massachusetts is from non-residential sources. Thus, even if you perfectly captured bottles and cans from curbside collection programs, and at the risk of offending some of you, I would argue that none of you are doing that and many are not even close, you would still only be doing so for only 40% of the MSW waste stream.

Saying we don't need the bottle bill because we have improved curbside collection is in my opinion makes almost as little sense as me suggesting that I don't need vitamin B, C, or E because I am getting plenty of calcium.

I think the bottle bill has been the most effective way to recycle bottles & cans since it's inception, and I think it is time that we allow this tool to be used for all of the new specialty beverage bottles that have been developed since the original bottle bill was first passed.

My two cents worth.

Roger Guzowski

Remember to Recycle

Letter to the Editor of the Carlisle Mosquito

Thank you to the organizers and sponsors of the 2010 Mosquito Trash Party. As a first-year participant, I found it a satisfying and surprising experience.

Having surveyed the litterscape while walking to Trash Party Central, I was confident one bag would be plenty for my trash mile. I was wrong. That lone bag was stuffed to overflowing by the time I finished.

Fifteen minutes along my Trash Party trail, the value of trash as an archeological treasure trove was clear. The haul from this grimy pursuit was type-consistent. Aside from the odd, sodden t-shirt (Men’s, X Large), and a trash lid most likely flipped from its container during its trip to or from the Transfer Station, the bulk of items fell into one category: beverage containers. The containers consisted of a variety of plastic bottles (recyclable, non-redeemable) and aluminum beer cans (redeemable or recyclable). Virtually all of these finds were in the vacant spaces between homes, suggesting the litterers were just passing through and showing their respect by not throwing their trash onto our lawns. The story of this roadside trash is one of abundance and a disposable culture.

It’s ironic that while some are urging legislation to “Drill, baby, drill” for oil, plastic bottles are made of PET which is 99% petroleum. Over 1 billion containers a year are littered or thrown into incinerators or landfills in Massachusetts alone. It’s estimated that the energy used to replace the 134 billion discarded beverage containers in the US in 2005 is equivalent to 50 million barrels of crude oil. While a nickel deposit isn’t worth some peoples’ while even in down times, the aluminum in those beer cans, as well as PET plastic, are two of the more highly valued recyclable stocks.

Passing an update to the 1982 Bottle Bill to include contemporary containers and switching to reusable, non-BPA bottles are steps in the right direction for dealing with this problem. Short of those measures, we need to diligently redeem or recycle what we use. Don’t let valuable, finite resources go up in Wheelabrator smoke. Please.

Launa Zimmaro

Lowell Street

Carlisle Sierra Club Committee, Chair

Member of Carlisle Household Recycling Committee

Observing Earth Day

A group of Sharon residents observed Earth Day this year by studying Sharon’s trash. Here are the results of an hour spent retrieving cans and bottles from Sharon’s roadways and trash barrels.

A. Roadside litter

Total beverage containers retrieved: 617

Non-deposit water and sports drinks: 408 (66%)

5¢ deposit cans and bottles: 209 (34%)

B. Trash barrels at Deborah Sampson ball fields, Sharon High School and Memorial Park Beach

Total beverage containers retrieved: 106

Non-deposit water and sports drinks: 91 (86%)

5¢ deposit cans and bottles: 15 (14%)

After sorting and counting the containers, the residents took the 499 non-deposit containers to the DPW recycling station to keep them from ending up in a landfill.

The 224 deposit containers went to the nearest redemption center, eight miles away in Stoughton. Stuck with an inflation-eroded handling fee of 2.25¢ per container set in 1983, many redemption centers have gone out of business in recent years.

Conclusions:

• Far more non-deposit than deposit containers are littering our roadways and filling our landfills.

• The 2.25¢ handling fee is no longer enough to ensure an adequate number of redemption centers.

The Bottle Bill has been one of the most successful environmental laws ever enacted in Massachusetts. Approximately 80% of deposit containers are recycled, versus only around 22% for non-deposit containers. It’s time to update the Bottle Bill to require deposits on bottled water and other non-carbonated beverages and increase the handling fee to ensure conveniently located redemption centers.

The Sharon Selectmen recently voted in favor of a resolution supporting a Bottle Bill update. Please call your state representative and senator, and ask them to help pass this common-sense legislation (H3515 / S1480).

Happy Earth Day!

Paul Lauenstein

Municipalities Would Gain Several Million Dollars with Bottle Bill Update

Groups tout DEP report which shows savings on litter cleanup and trash fees

Joint news release from MASSPIRG, Massachusetts Sierra Club, and MassRecycle

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has issued a report that itemizes how much cities and towns will benefit from updating the Massachusetts bottle bill, legislation which has been pending for years in the state legislature and is getting a big push this spring from a broad coalition, including the League of Women Voters, Mass Municipal Association, the Environmental League of MA, and many more.

With growing awareness of the waste and public expense that come from throwaway containers, an expanding coalition has been pressing the Legislature to finally expand the nickel deposit system to cover water and other “single serve” beverage containers that now end up as litter in parks, on roadsides, and in landfills.

The DEP report, “Municipal Benefits of an Updated Bottle Bill,” shows that municipalities can expect to save between $4.3 to $7 million annually, by avoiding cleanup and disposal costs for these beverage containers. “This would amount to a savings of roughly $1 for each resident of the Commonwealth, each year,” said Claire Sullivan, Executive Director of the South Shore Recycling Cooperative, an association of 13 communities south of Boston. “For example, Weymouth and Plymouth could each expect to save about $50,000 per year. Duxbury’s DPW Director independently estimated his cost to manage the beverage containers that aren’t in the deposit system at $10,000.”

“The Bottle Bill is the state’s most successful recycling and litter prevention program. Since its inception in 1983, over 30 billion containers have been redeemed, contributing to a healthier environment, cleaner and safer communities, and a stronger economy,” said Phil Sego, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Sierra Club. “But to keep up with the times and consumers’ tastes, the bottle bill must be updated.”

“Every year, we send over 1 billion containers to our landfills, enough to fill Fenway Park to overflowing,” said Janet Domenitz, Executive Director of Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG). “If these water, juice, and vitamin drink containers had a deposit, we’d eliminate litter, reduce trash, and save taxpayer dollars, as the DEP report shows. We need an update now.””

The report is available at www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/exbbmuni.pdf