Time to revisit the Bottle Bill?
On Sunday, the Oregonian explored the question of whether Oregon's once-innovative Bottle Bill should be updated and expanded.
Momentum is growing in Oregon to update the bill, which has been responsible for recycling billions of drink containers. Barrett and others say a rising economy, Democratic control of the Oregon Legislature and waning influence of some key interest groups could give them their best shot yet at revamping the law."I have never seen a more positive climate for doing something to modernize our bottle bill," says state Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem. Berger, whose father was instrumental in passing the original bill, has become the go-to lawmaker for bottle bill changes. ...
New products and new containers have revolutionized the beverage industry. Who knew consumers would trade their Dr Pepper for Rock Star energy drink or translucent bottles of chilled green tea? Plastic bottles, meanwhile, have taken up a huge share of the drink container market. A decade ago, one in 10 bottles was made of plastic; now more than one in four is plastic.
Plastic bottles can be recycled at curbside, but most often they aren't. In 2005, for example, Oregonians threw away about 125 million empty water bottles, or about 35 for every man, woman and child in Oregon, according to statistics from the state Department of Environmental Quality. That's up from the 30 million disposed in 1998. ...
After the session opens Jan. 8, Berger plans to introduce a bill that, for starters, would require deposits on all water bottles as well as aluminum cans that hold noncarbonated drinks, bringing millions of new containers into the law's reach. "It's an incredible resource that's being wasted," she says, and Oregon's bottle bill no longer has enough teeth to stop the waste.
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
Dec. 11, 2006
Posted in in the news 2006. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 11, '06
Full disclosure: I obsessively recycle plastics, to the point of fishing our recyclables from the household garbage that my kids throw away (in spite of my frequent lectures). However I do not support this. Why should those of us who take recycling seriously, and dont need govt telling us what to do be penalized by having to pay a deposit, and what's much worse than the out of pocket expense is driving to the store and standing in line, fighting those damn filthy recylcing machines that always jam. I suppose that's the nature of regulation in general, to penalize those who dont need to be forced to do the right thing to force those who are to lazy or self-centered to do the right thing. Thanks for the opportunity to rant!
6:07 a.m.
Dec 11, '06
I recycle every bottle and can in our household, one way or the other. But without some requirement that the deposit return process be improved beyond the filthy, degrading, time-sucking process it is now, this is going to be a hard sell.
Dec 11, '06
I agree that it's now time to crack down on corporate polluters. But if we are going to change the bottle bill, let's include a .05 or .10 cent deposit or tax on newspapers. Exclude the smaller papers if that's needed to pass the bill.
The Oregonian's consumption of paper and its use incinerators makes it one of Oregon's leading producers of greenhouse gases and benzene.
Of course you won't ever read about this in the paper. But you can read about it: here. Note to advertisers: follow the link to a new group that will tell you how much your consumption of print ads contributes to global warming.
Did anyone else notice the sheer weight of the news-poor, ad-rich Sunday Oregonian yesterday? It's a menace.
Dec 11, '06
i'm not really sure how i feel about the bottle bill. i don't like using those machines at my local store. i don't like having to wait in line for the pleasure of using them. and i don't like how most stores ignore problems with their machines, presumably because of the clientele they attract. but i sure do like getting money [even though it's the same extra money i paid when i bought my beer]. and i know that money is a great incentive for the people who would not otherwise recycle. [after reading some of the statistics in the article, that seems like a lot of people.]
the recycling change that really needs to be made is to improve curbside recycling. it is silly that i cannot recycle many plastic containers [butter tubs come to mind first] curbside. where my parents live, they can put all of their recyclables into one bin. they can put those plastic rings that hold six packs in with glass and paper and plastic grocery bags. this is a rural area that trends conservative. how can liberal portland not do better? the easier it is for people to recycle, the more people will do it.
Dec 11, '06
If they include bottled water, I will do what I can to oppose any changes to the bottle bill. With everyone talking about obesity and long term health care issues, why discourage the consumption of a healthful substance?
Dec 11, '06
Oh puhleeze.
Your evidence that the deposit currently inhibits the consumption of soda pop?
Dec 11, '06
I agree and I would add a couple more changes that would make people more likely to recycle. First, the deposit should be increased from five cents to ten cents. And second, all stores should be required to take all cans and bottles returned to them, even if they don't sell those brands.
Dec 11, '06
Two suggestions:
Make the State of Oregon responsible for operating and maintaining can and bottle redemption centers. It should never have been a job foisted on retailers. That has been a major flaw of the bottle bill since its inception.
Have “speed lanes” at these redemption centers for those of us redeeming only a few returnables so we don’t have to wait hours behind folks whose primary source of income is collecting shopping carts full of empties.
10:30 a.m.
Dec 11, '06
But without some requirement that the deposit return process be improved beyond the filthy, degrading, time-sucking process it is now, this is going to be a hard sell.
I wonder if someone knows how this happened. It didn't use to be so damn difficult. I remembe as a kid, you'd go to the store, head to the back, ring a bell, and some high school kid would come out and do the count - and hand you a piece of paper to redeem up front.
Somewhere along the way, the stores decided that spending a large amount of money on technology and physical space to move 'em outside was worth it. Why? And could we reverse it?
Make the State of Oregon responsible for operating and maintaining can and bottle redemption centers. It should never have been a job foisted on retailers.
I'm intrigued. How would the deposit work then? Right now, you hand your nickel to the retailer. And you get your nickel back from the retailer. And, I could be wrong, but doesn't the retailer profit from the unreturned bottles?
If the state has redemption centers, presumably all the nickels would flow to those centers -- and the retailers no longer would profit from the returns... Instead, the state would. The retailers might be OK with that, but there's an effect there.
Dec 11, '06
I will not recyle again until we take the recycling machines inside, get rid of the limit per day on what we bring to recyle, and have the people who recive our recyled products sort them - not have us sort them. I have had too much grief from these people who get in my face and tell me that I am a poor recyler because I can't sort properly. I am not a recylcler - they are.
10:40 a.m.
Dec 11, '06
Eric,
No, you consume the products and you recycle them. That is the nature of the beast. How come you think you can pawn off your responsibilities onto a grocery store?
Dec 11, '06
Kari,
Regarding the nickels, I believe the store passes them back to the wholesaler/distributor. In other words, the store gets charged a deposit just like we do. It's the distributor who keeps the unclaimed nickels. Major opportunity to a little ox-goring analysis and see how that plays out in the legislation.
Dec 11, '06
Excuse me but I am surprised by all the whining in the posts above.
Hello, we've been trashing the planet. Things are getting pretty dire with global warming and all.
We as a society need to get off our lazy asses and shed this sense of entitlement. Just because you recycle assiduously hardly means your neighbor does. Despite our recycling programs, the per capita amount of waste is on the rise.
According to the last night's nightly news, Oregon's recycling rate on cans and bottles far surpasses the average in other states.
The deposit is an effective instrument. Increasing the rate and expanding coverage on other bottles will make it more effective.
OK, let's beef up regulation on stores to make the redemption experience more appealing and clean. More regulation is needed not less.
As for Paul's comment ... "No, you consume the products and you recycle them. That is the nature of the beast. How come you think you can pawn off your responsibilities onto a grocery store?"
The reason is simple: market exchange involves at least a buyer and a seller. I consume products other people sell. There is nothing outrageous about a surchage or regluation affecting all parties to the exchange. The stores should definately be forced to deal with the mess they help create. We should make it more expensive for them to sell waste intentsive beverage and favor markets for less wasteful enterprise.
And, finally, wanting to find another way to hide the homeless from public consciousness is the last thing we need.
Likewise, thanks for the chance to rant.
Dec 11, '06
PA is correct, the nickel deposits are paid up front to the distributor, who returns them only when the containers come back for a refund. Retailers get no cut from the deposit. Unclaimed nickels have likely been enhancing the legislative influence of the beer distributors (and of their lobbyist, Mr. Paul Romain) for some time now. There's lots of straight unbiased information at DEQ's Bottle Bill page. Check it out....
Dec 11, '06
Avoid those filthy recycling machines and the lines.
Some organizations will take your stuff and then schlepp it all to a sort of bulk recycler, I believe. My daughter's school PTA did this at one time. Check with you local schools.
New Seasons Markets will accept your deposit bottles and cans and turn the nickels over to a school program (Bottles for Books, I believe it is called). Indeed, I just trundled over a huge bag of plastic soda bottles to New Seasons at NE 33rd and Killingsworth and donated them.
Put the deposit stuff out at the curbside with your recyclables. There are people who scrounge these things. Not a job I wish to do, but surely anyone doing this sort of scrounging needs the nickels more than I.
Dec 11, '06
Expanding the bottle bill to other beverages is such a no brainer it makes me wonder about the intelligence of the people whining about it.
If you don't like having to deal with the recycling machines at the big supermarkets, go to retailers with better customer service. New Seasons and Trader Joe's have the old-style human bottle counter inside the store (actually, at Trader Joe's, they just ask you how many bottles you have, so if you already counted them, they give you a receipt on the spot--and besides, beer at Trader Joe's is better and cheaper).
That nickel deposit per bottle isn't enough incentive for me to endure the stupid machine's at Fred's or Safeway, so if I have any bottles from these stores, or convenience stores, I just put them in a bag or box on the sidewalk and a bottle scavenger typically picks them up within hours.
Grocery retailers operate on pretty slim margins and some even have union labor, so they are always trying to cut costs. Hence the machines (which may or may not cut costs). I'm all for paying the grocer a penny on every bottle that he gets to keep. That is, you pay a six-cent deposit and get five cents back. And the grocer passes the nickel back to the wholesaler. A penny per bottle over the course of a day's transactions at a supermarket will add up to a substantial figure. This penny tip, however, should be coupled with meeting stronger standards for their recycling centers.
Dec 11, '06
We should raise the deposit to a dime. Better year, twenty cents (bigger incentive for returns) -- that still doesn't quite keep up with inflation since 1973. Ten cents goes to the distributor, ten cents back to the retailer. Unreturned containers represent pure profit for both retailers and wholesalers.
2:07 p.m.
Dec 11, '06
DJK is right.
My idea is that we should raise the deposit by a penny a year, until we catch up to the value of a nickel in 1973. (I think it's around 24 cents, last time I did the math.)
2:09 p.m.
Dec 11, '06
I'm all for paying the grocer a penny on every bottle that he gets to keep.
No. They can - right now - raise the price by a penny anytime they want.
Having a deposit that isn't fully refundable breaks the social contract of the deposit. You pay a little bit, and then you get it back if you do the right thing.
Dec 11, '06
Rewrite the bill so that collecting returnables can be a profit center for stores.
Some percentage of bottles will never be returned (simply because they wind up in the trash), this represents a surplus deposit. The state should put all surplus deposits into a fund which then gets redistributed to the stores in proportion to how many bottles they collect every year.
As an extra incentive, give a bigger chunk to stores which allow the return of any kind of bottle, or have a human being assisting in the collection rather than the much-hated machines.
If the surplus is not sufficient to offer a real incentive, consider first increasing the deposit to a level that would make this work, or as a last resort, having the deposit be partially a tax (you pay 15 cents in, but get 10 cents back), with that tax mostly dedicated to reimbursing the retailers and administering the program.
Consider also offering financial bonuses from this program to the bottlers themselves if they reduce the quantity and types of packaging they offer, or switch their product lines to materials more in demand (metal vs. plastic, etc.) by recyclers.
The key point here: Gear the program so that everyone has an incentive to participate.
Dec 11, '06
Hello, we've been trashing the planet. Things are getting pretty dire with global warming and all.
Until you are prepared to discuss the root cause of all the ills you list, overpopulation, don’t waste my time with your guilt trip over discussions to make the bottle bill more effective.
How would the deposit work then? Right now, you hand your nickel to the retailer. And you get your nickel back from the retailer. And, I could be wrong, but doesn't the retailer profit from the unreturned bottles?
Take the retailer out of the loop, they aren’t in the recycling business. I’m sure they would love not having to deal with the hassle bottle returns present. Have beverage distributors deal directly with the State, presenting it with an invoice for product delivered to retailers.
Consumers would still hand their nickel to the retailer, they could just redeem the container at a better, State run facility, dedicated to that purpose.
We should raise the deposit to a dime. Better year, twenty cents (bigger incentive for returns)
Raise the refund too much and then watch transients get into confrontations over who gets that bottle in your recycling bin. There’s an effect there.
3:18 p.m.
Dec 11, '06
Consumers would still hand their nickel to the retailer, they could just redeem the container at a better, State run facility, dedicated to that purpose.
I'm liking the idea of dedicated facilities. Here's the rub, though: There can't possibly be as many recycling facilities as there are grocery stores. This is a particular issue in rural areas -- people won't recycle if they have to drive 20 miles to do so.
Not only that, but are we talking about a whole new state program? I think the privatized bottle return system works pretty well, actually. It has its problems, and maybe the wrong people are paying the freight, but I'm not sure that hundreds more state employees are needed just to recycle our bottles.
Dec 11, '06
Bert:
global warming is a lie by the Loonie Left, and trash is a sign that we are dominating the global economy. If China wants to give us all of their resources for cheap, then they deserve to become slaves to the United States.
Long live capitalism!
4:49 p.m.
Dec 11, '06
I guess I'm the only one who likes the machines. Then again, my usual place is inside, and there's no limit. I just pushed about 400 cans through the hole last night, in fact. Once you get a riddim going, you can do about 40-50 cans a minute. Your arm gets tired after a while, but that 22 bucks felt good in my pocket. (Yes, I know it was mine to start with, but still).
I'm totally down with making it a dime, though.
Dec 11, '06
I have no problem with the inside machine at the nearest grocery store -- except there are some they won't accept. And have you seen those midget cans (maybe 8 oz rather than 12)? Great to take in a lunch if you know you couldn't drink a whole 12 oz. in the time available. But my experience is the machine doesn't count them, so I now take them to a human to count ( another store just a couple more miles away).
People who live in a rural area might not like being told they can't take the bottles to the local grocery store. And if it is expanded for tea in cans, bottled water, etc. then it really does need to include all brands, not "sorry we can't take that brand of bottled water because we don't sell it". I refuse to buy Fred Meyer pop because of their return machine in the middle of the parking lot.
5:09 p.m.
Dec 11, '06
That's right, retailers can add on that penny any time they want. After all, they do set the price they're going to sell their soda for.
I can tell you that soda costs considerably more here than it does in Texas. Most of the time we're paying twice as much for Coca Cola and Pepsi products than my parents are in Texas. I was shocked to come here and find a 12-pack of Dr. Pepper going for $4+ here in the Portland area when I was paying $1.99 in Texas. The 2-liters rarely go above $1, while here it's rare to find them at $1.
Don't feel so bad for the stores. While they whine and complain, they are still making money off the sodas, beers, etc. They shouldn't be let off the hook to ensure their machines are in good working order, are emptied as often as they should be, etc.
I do wish more places would have the machines like Fred Meyer-- where you can just pour a whole bunch of cans in a tray, push it up, and let it do the work while you work on your plastic bottles at the next machine. Doing them one-by-one can take forever, especially when you drink as much soda as my husband does.
Adding a deposit to water isn't going to keep people from drinking water. You don't have to buy bottled water to drink good water-- we have a pitcher with a filter on it. You pour water in and it filters the water while it chills in the fridge. Even though we have great water in Gresham, it's even better through the filter. We're considering just buying one for the sink. When we want to take the water with us, it can go into any type of traveling container. When I buy a bottle when I'm out running errands, or bring one home from work, I try to keep them for refilling. Abby loves to be able to grab a bottle out of the fridge.
However, I'd keep the deposit low-- 5 cents would be good.
Dec 11, '06
I have to say that most of you people are clueless about the bottle bill. The current redemption rate is over 80% for the items included in the bottle bill. Why do we need to raise the deposit level when the current level is working? The issue is the items that should be recycled aren't getting recycled. If you look at the redemption rates for non-deposit states, I think the redemption rates are below 30% It's a no brainer! Bottle bills work! The issue is all of the money behind stopping bottle bills and where that comes from. You can look back at the article in the Oregonian about how arrogant the grocery association is on defeating any increase in the bottle bill. The concept of the grocery stores being responsible is a GREAT part of the Oregon bottle bill. I don't want to go to another location to return my empties from where I go to buy more. The retailer needs to compensated for the job they do. Their costs to do redemption is very high and the need of a handling fee of 2 cents is needed to offset their expenses. I am more than willing to pay my part for the benifit of the world we live in. Take a look at what the EU is doing in Europe as far as countries having to meet recycling standards or facing HUGE fines. Bottle bills are popping up across Europe because they work. They also believe in the producers and profitors being responible. If you would like a web site to look at that provides quality information you can look at www.bottlebill.org I am tired of hearing people rant who really have no clue to what is going on. Thanks for letting me vent.
Dec 11, '06
Dear Buckman Res who said:
"Until, you are prepared to discuss the root cause of all the ills you list, overpopulation, don’t waste my time with your guilt trip over discussions to make the bottle bill more effective."
I have no problem discussing overpopulation as a root cause. Let's hand out the condoms and other birth control measures, let's have some good sex education in schools and other social institutions. Let's redistribute resources so peoples with high fertilities and/or high pollution can better manage their awareness, behavior and impacts. Let's not sneer in a knee jerk way at countries with stronger population policies.
That said, high consumption of certain populations is also a strong cause of our predicaments, and can't be ignored. You're right that a better bottle won't, by itself, solve much. But, given our relatively high consumption levels, it's hard to sympathisize with complaints about how hard it is to recycle.
As a small step in influencing behavior, the bottle bill has shown itself to be effective. But yeah, if we want to make a difference in the confines of the current system a BTU tax would probably be an effective tool.
To Chez who said:
global warming is a lie by the Loonie Left, and trash is a sign that we are dominating the global economy. If China wants to give us all of their resources for cheap, then they deserve to become slaves to the United States.
Long live capitalism!
If this is not tongue and cheek, kind of hard to tell, er and by capitalism you mean well functioning and fair markets where production and social costs are accurately reflected in prices, then maybe we could try it some day. Just as a little experiment.
Let's check back in 20 years. In the mean time ... Fortune cookie say: 1) steer clear of real estate deals in Florida and Bangladesh. 2) Learning some Mandarin could be handy for dealing with future landlord.
Dec 11, '06
There is an unintended consequence, more distant locations from the materials processing facility actually require more petroleum to transport the plastic that is saved by re-processing the material. I'm all for controlling trash, but as for "saving the planet", it depends on more analysis than feeling good about your bottles. Both gasoline and diesel are higher up the hydrocarbon chain in refining than plastics bases and thus more "harmful" to the equation of global warming and oil dependence. It never hurts to know just exactly what it is that you're advocating. Most of Oregon is remote from processors, what a population study would show, I'm not sure, but there is significant population that is remote. Aluminum works better in the equation by nature of the material.
11:28 a.m.
Dec 12, '06
Bert, I think you and I are on the same page. What I objected to was the statement "I am not a recycler: they are." This is wrong, as you noted. We are ALL using up resources and have some responsibility to limit the damage. We are ALL recyclers.
Jenni, This is a slippery slope you are on. I don't know why the relative price of soda in TX vs. OR or the profit that stores are or are not making off of soda has any bearing on whether we are willing to require a private entity like a grocery store to shoulder the costs of a public venture like recycling.
2:46 p.m.
Dec 12, '06
Paul--
People act as if the grocery stores are going into debt because they have to handle the recycling. They aren't. They make a large amount of money off the soda. Not only do they make money from us buying the soda, but they save money by having the distributor stock the shelves. They also make money from selling "space" on the shelves-- the more a company is willing to pay, the more room they give them for their soda displays.
What I was trying to point out is that they aren't having to shoulder the costs of recycling. They've added onto the soda their costs having to deal with having the machines and tending to them. We make businesses take on additional costs every day because of laws we've put forward. Some are for public safety, others are just because we want it that way. But this is one case where the cost is being passed right along to the customer.
<h2>It's us, the customers, who are paying for it. That's why we need to demand that stores do a better job of keeping the can return area clean and the machines in good working order. When they aren't, we can complain and take our business elsewhere. Since at our house we buy name brand (Coke, Cherry Coke, Dr. Pepper), I can return the cans at just about any store. And since the money I get from the cans is turned right around and used in the store (plus some, since I'm usually buying groceries for the week), it hurts their business if I go elsewhere.</h2>