   |
|||||||||||||||
|
Various Articles on New York's Bottle BillBottle battle brewing in AlbanyBy MARK JOHNSON Associated Press Writer June 1, 2005, 2:28 PM EDT ALBANY, N.Y. -- It's a bottle bill battle at the state Capitol. In one corner are advocates for expanding the state law on 5 cent bottle returns to include containers currently not covered under the law, such as those for water and sports drinks. In the other corner are grocery stores and bottlers who want the bottle law eliminated and replaced with a recycling program funded by a "litter tax" on food, beverages, toiletries, tobacco and other household products. Environmental groups say the proliferation of sports drinks, bottled waters and drinks such as Snapple wasn't envisioned when most of the nation's bottle bills became law in the 1970s. They say updating New York's law to include those containers would keep up to 2.6 billion containers from landfills each year. A measure to expand the law is being sponsored by Republican Sen. Kenneth LaValle and Democratic Assemblyman Thomas DiNapoli. "The bottle bill provides a recycling infrastructure that works by itself, outside of government," said Jennifer Gitlitz of the national Container Recycling Institute. "Repealing the bottle bill would be a huge mistake for New York." A 1998 study by the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency showed that almost 84 percent of nonreturnable plastic bottles ended up as trash, while 77 percent of returnable containers were recycled. The numbers were similar for aluminum and glass containers. But grocers say the bottle bill is an outdated and inefficient way to recycle. They also contend the empty bottles and cans they collect attract rats, mice and cockroaches into their stores. They favor a bill introduced last week by Republican Sen. Thomas Libous and Democratic Assemblyman Paul Tokasz that would eliminate the bottle law and replace it with a recycling program based on the one used in New Jersey. The plan would charge manufacturers and wholesalers a fee to fund municipal curbside recycling and litter control programs. Manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors would pay a sales tax of 0.03 percent on the items deemed taxable. Retailers would pay a tax of 0.0225 percent. "Let's be responsible citizens," Libous said. "We don't need a redemption charge. Let's just recycle at the curb like we are supposed to, instead of charging consumers for all these products ... make it simple." Neither bill is set for a vote by lawmakers. Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc. ------------------------------------------ June 2, 2005 Pair of bills battle over bottle recycling
Environmental groups and grocery stores dueled Wednesday over whether to expand New York's bottle-deposit law or scrap it altogether. The outcome could change the way New Yorkers handle recyclable trash. At issue are competing bills: one would broaden the current deposit law to require a 5-cent return on all beverages, including water and juice, instead of just carbonated drinks. The bill also would allow the state to reclaim the estimated $85 million a year from unredeemed bottles, which would be allocated to the Environmental Protection Fund. The other would end the five-cent deposit and replace it with a broad-based tax on most packaging, from cereal and baby food to soda cans. Both measures are stuck in committee in the Assembly and Senate. While grocers, food industry executives, and some legislators are promoting the packaging bill as a more extensive, effective means of recycling, environmentalists call it a "stalling tactic," designed in big business's interest to block any bottle law expansion. Further, they say it will reduce incentives to recycle - some call the packaging bill the "Heaps of Broken Glass Bill." "A bottle without a deposit is more likely to end up in the trash," said Laura Haight of New York Public Interest Research Group. Proponents of the packaging bill contend that their proposal would provide an alternative way of recycling. It would tax manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers less than 0.03 percent on all products they sell in New York. It would generate a projected $23 million annually and would go to expand municipal curbside recycling and create a fund to promote recycled products. A trade group representing grocery stores and food workers strongly opposes expanding the bottle-deposit law. The expansion proposal takes "an ill-conceived, outdated idea and (makes) it worse," said Jim Rogers, president of the Food Industry Association of New York. Rogers said an expanded bottle bill would trigger higher prices on juices and water. He called the bill "a tax on families." But bottle law advocates say the packaging law will increase litter, not help get rid of it. "New York state's bottle bill has a 22-year track record of success," said Jenny Gitlitz, of the Container Recycling Institute. Gitlitz said currently about 70 percent to 75 percent of bottles that carry deposits are returned to recycling centers. Gitlitz suggested the real motive behind the packaging bill is to make it easier for grocers. They are "in the business of food and drinks. (Recycling) isn't their job," she said. ---------------------- Tom Cullen, Chairman of the Food Industry Alliance, a lobby group for supermarket chains, says that approach would be more efficient than the current system of bringing empty bottles back to stores. He says the chain of stores which he manages constantly battles dirt and health problems caused by the bottle collection areas. He says expanding the bottle law further is a "bad idea" . "We're becoming a garbage dump for the bottle law ," he said. Jim Rogers, also with the Food Industry Alliance, says things have changed since the bottle law was enacted 22 years ago in New York. For instance, he says, back then there was no such thing as curbside recycling. "The most effective way to recycle...is at the end of each of your driveways ," he said. Environmental groups say the bill has been introduced to block their efforts to expand the state's bottle law to include deposits on bottled juice, tea and water. Laura Haight, with the New York Public Interest Research Group, says a debate on the expansion bill is expected on the Assembly floor later this month. It has several Majority Party sponsors in the Senate. "My view is that this bill is a smokescreen and it's meant to divert attention and to stop the forward motion of the bottle bill," she said. Jennifer Gitlitz, with the national group Container Recycling Institute, says similar bills have been introduced by the supermarket industry in other states to try to repeal bottle laws or block their expansions. Gitlitz says opponents of the bottle laws frame the debate as a choice between container deposits or recycling, but she says states that do both actually have higher rates of recycling overall. The bill supported by the supermarket industry has a Majority Party sponsor
in each house, in the Assembly it's the Majority Leader, Paul Tokasz, of Buffalo,
and in the Senate, Senator Tom Libous, of Binghamton. The emergence of the
bill to repeal the bottle law, coming just three weeks before the scheduled
end of the legislative session, makes it more likely that the issue of expanding
the state's bottle law will remain unresolved this year. ----------------------------- Newsday Editorial Battle over bottle bill June 2, 2005 It would be madness to repeal New York's bottle bill, as industry wants. For two decades, the law has succeeded in keeping carbonated beverage containers from littering the landscape. What the state really needs is to expand it. The sponsor of the expanded bottle bill, Assemb. Thomas DiNapoli (D-Great Neck), successfully answered the questions of his Democratic colleagues in a conference Tuesday, before members briefly discussed a repealer introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Paul Tokasz (D-Cheektowaga). Supporters of both bills had news conferences yesterday. DiNapoli's bill would build on success, by adding to the bottle bill the huge number of containers - for water, juice and other noncarbonated drinks - that have hit the market since the original 1982 law. It also takes back from the beverage industry the nickels that it has been allowed to keep for unredeemed containers. New York needs that windfall. But the bill increases per-container handling fees paid to supermarkets and redemption centers. So it's a fair balance. Tokasz would repeal the current system and impose a fee (translation: tax) on other consumer products, creating revenue to help municipalities clean up the mess. But municipalities want less volume in curbside collection, not more. So the Ways and Means Committee should report out the DiNapoli bill and the full Assembly should pass it. Then Sen. Kenneth LaValle (R-Port Jefferson) can work on passing his companion Senate bill. It's past time to get this done. Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc. <http://www.nynewsday.com/> -------------------------- June 2, 2005 --------------------- Binghamton Press Future of bottle deposit up in air 1 bill would kill it; 1 would extend itBY AMANDA ERICKSON At issue are competing bills: One would broaden the current deposit law to require a 5-cent return on all beverages, including water and juice, instead of just carbonated drinks. The bill would also allow the state to reclaim the estimated $85 million a year from unredeemed bottles, which would be allocated to the Environmental Protection Fund. The other bill would end the 5-cent deposit and replace it with a broad-based tax on most packaging, from cereal and baby food to soda cans. Both measures are stuck in committee in the Assembly and Senate. While grocers, food industry executives and some legislators are promoting the bill ending bottle deposits as a more extensive, effective means of recycling, environmentalists call it a "stalling tactic," designed in big business' interest to block any bottle-law expansion. Further, they say it will reduce incentives to recycle; some call the packaging bill the "Heaps of Broken Glass Bill." "A bottle without a deposit is more likely to end up in the trash," said
Laura Haight of New York Public Interest Research Group. But proponents of
the packaging bill contend that their proposal would provide an alternative
way of recycling. It would tax manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers less
than 0.03 percent on all products they sell in New York. It would generate
a projected $23 million annually and would go to expand municipal curbside
recycling and create a fund to promote recycled products. But bottle-law advocates say the recycling bill would increase litter, not help get rid of it. "New York state's bottle bill has a 22-year track record of success," said Jenny Gitlitz of the Container Recycling Institute. Gitlitz said currently about 70-75 percent of bottles that carry deposits are returned to recycling centers. Gitlitz suggested the real motive behind the recycling bill is to make it easier for grocers. They are "in the business of food and drinks; (recycling) isn't their job," she said. In fact, some stores struggle to keep bottle recycling areas clean, said Tom Coughlin, vice chairman of King Kullen, a grocery chain. That's part of why the law should be changed, he said. "We're becoming a garbage dump for the bottle law," Coughlin said. Gitlitz said she had never heard of a health violation being issued as a result of the bottle law. |
||||||||||||||
| © 2005 City & County of Honolulu's Department of Environmental Services. | |||||||||||||||
