Why LWVCT Supports Bottle Bill
|
|
|
Why does Connecticut need to increase recycling? Connecticut’s newly adopted December 2006 Solid Waste Management Plan presents a sobering look at Connecticut’s solid waste management noting the status, pressures, events and trends that are impacting our state. Although the 1991 Plan was premised on self-sufficiency, the 2005 figures presented in the current Plan reflect an approximate 12-fold increase in the out-of-state disposal of Connecticut’s solid waste since 1991. The Plan states simply and clearly “There is not enough disposal capacity in Connecticut to handle all waste generated in the state.” (State of Connecticut, State Solid Waste Management Plan, December 2006, Executive Summary, P. ES-9)
This Plan calls for decisive and re-invigorated action in the management of solid waste. The plan projects that if we maintain the current 30% diversion rate, by 2024 we will be shipping approximately 1.5 million tons of waste out of state annually (State of Connecticut, State Solid Waste Management Plan, December 2006, Executive Summary, P. ES-5) . Connecticut taxpayers have no control over the costs of out-of-state disposal fees, or the high cost of fuel to transport waste out of Connecticut. The Plan sets a new goal of a 58%, nearly double the current rate, and achieving that goal relies upon a variety of strategies including a significant increase in the type and amount of products mandated for recycling.
Why mandate recycling of water and other non-carbonated beverages? The growth in non-carbonated beverage consumption has outpaced other drinks. In 2005, Connecticut consumers bought 426 million bottles of water. (Container Recycling Institute presentation to CGA 3/8/2007) That is approximately 120 bottles of water for every man, woman and child resident in the state – and that doesn’t take into account teas, sport drinks and other beverages!! All of those bottles can be recycled using the same proven method of deposit-redemption that we have used for nearly 30 years with no collection expense to taxpayers.
Why mandate the redemption-deposit program for beverage containers? Connecticut Recyclers Coalition’s February 2007 testimony stated it simply and clearly. The redemption-deposit program for beverage container recycling deserves support because:
The current beer and soda container redemption rates of approximately 65-70% demonstrate that Connecticut’s long-standing user-funded program is effective, i.e., has high participation, and equitable, i.e., only those that use the designated products are subject to the program.
It’s clear from the high participation rate that residents are “in the habit” of the deposit-redemption program. If residents are willing to return their containers, then why shouldn’t those profiting from making and selling the product share responsibility for managing the waste it produces? The three largest bottlers of bottled water – Coke (Dasani), Pepsi (Aquafina) and Nestle (Poland Spring, Evian) all make carbonated beverages that are already in the deposit/redemption system. Other distributors that are not currently in the system have learned how to make deposits work in California, Maine and Hawaii. Those that want to sell their products in Connecticut will be able to make deposits work here also.
Most of the containers targeted under the bill are not going through any recycling facility now. Some will continue to go to the processing centers, but most are now going in the incinerator. We need a joint effort - more public recycling and an expanded bottle bill to capture these containers.
How will an expanded deposit-redemption program affect towns? It depends upon the community. Some municipalities may lose a small portion of their revenue from reduced curbside recycling of some beverage containers. Keep in mind, however, that the bill limits new containers to be added to the deposit-redemption to “beverage containers are (1) two liters or less in size if they contain a carbonated beverage and (2) 20 ounces or less in size if they contain a noncarbonated beverage. Thus, for example, it excludes larger water containers and juice bottles.” (OLR Analysis) Therefore, if the bill were to pass, there will remain many containers that will continue to need curbside recycling.
It’s also true that some municipalities would experience higher costs if the designated beverage containers were mandated to be recycled curbside. For example, the City of Branford initiated a study with Yale that determined that Branford would experience an net extra cost each year of at least $28,500 if required to recycle these beverage containers curbside. Consequently, Branford actively supports the Bottle bill initiative.
Taking many factors into account, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, Connecticut's statewide association of towns and cities, came out in support – not opposition – to the “bottle bill” and did so in testimony before the Connecticut General Assembly.
The point is to maximize recycling at a minimum financial and environmental cost. Collection of recyclables is not free. We know that all Connecticut taxpayers are and will be affected by the ever-increasing costs and environmental impacts associated with out of state waste disposal. Redemption recycling gets a 70% return rate – better than any other recycling program that exists.
What about the environmental benefits of an expanded redemption-deposit program?
The deposit system was and still it the best way to control litter on streets, beaches or in our parks. More than 2/3 of containers with deposits get returned for redemption. And those containers that are discarded or littered are usually picked up by others for the redemption value. This “unofficial litter patrol” saves the towns more tax dollars by saving the costs to clean up all that litter and dispose of it.
Redemption recycling is fuel efficient and less polluting. Most people return their empties when they are going to the store anyway, combining trips. Curbside recycling requires a special trip using diesel powered trucks. Redemption recycling with reverse vending machines (RVMs) shreds or crushes material into small pieces. Significantly more material is transported to processing facilities per trip when containers are reduced to shreds. Think how much more plastic can be moved in the same truckload when the bottles are shredded instead of whole –with whole bottles, the truck is filled with mostly air! More trips to move the same amount of material means more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention higher fuel costs.
Let’s not forget that plastic bottles are a petroleum based product. Maximizing recycling of these containers is one way to minimize our reliance on foreign sources of oil. Also, there is a serious shortage of clean PET (the plastic water bottles are made from) for manufacturers who buy recycled PET to make carpets, polar fleece and other more durable consumer goods. The increased number of PET water bottles that would be collected through reverse vending machines and redemption centers would provide a clean, valuable source of highly marketable PET.
Both curbside recycling and the deposit redemption program are important components of our waste management plan. However, when it comes to beverage containers, Connecticut’s nearly 30 years of success with the redemption-deposit programs demonstrates it’s the way go.
Contact: Cheryl Dunson LWVCT VP Public Issues 203/288-7996
|
|
LWVCT
SUPPORTS THE “BOTTLE BILL” 5/23/07