|
July 11, 2008
The Detroit News
Opinion
Should state add deposit on drink containers?
Pro: Stop litter, save money, create jobs by expanding successful bottle law
Dennis Muchmore
Michigan citizens have a timely opportunity to correct a serious problem with litter along our state's streams, lakes, beaches and roadways. At the same time, they can help reduce energy use and create new jobs. They can ask state legislators to support expanding Michigan's bottle bill to include noncarbonated drinks such as bottled water, sport drinks, tea and juice containers.
The 50,000 hunters and anglers and 400 affiliated clubs that belong to the Michigan United Conservation Clubs overwhelmingly support this proposal. MUCC first blazed this trail in 1976 when Michigan, by a 2-1 voter margin, became the first state to pass a bottle law.
The law has been incredibly successful. You don't see pop and beer cans along road sides or trails because they're worth 10 cents each. What you do see are plenty of throw-away containers. This wasteful practice must change.
According to the Container Recycling Institute, in 2005 each Michigan resident bought an average of 338 bottles and cans of soda pop and beer for a total of 5.5 billion containers. More than 97 percent of those containers were recycled. Sadly, only 20 percent of the 1.4 billion empty non-fizzy containers Michiganians consumed were recycled. They ended up in landfills or were tossed out to litter our roads and critical wildlife habitats. This is no longer acceptable.
Beverage containers comprise 50 to 60 percent of litter. For example, the Solid Waste Coordinators of Kentucky found that 58 percent of collected litter were empty cans and bottles, pull tabs and closures. Deposit laws not only reduce container litter, they help reduce other types of litter, too. In the 11 states that now have deposit laws, container litter has been reduced 69 to 84 percent. Total litter has fallen 34 to 64 percent.
Thirty years ago, when Michigan voters approved the current law, no one drank bottled water. Sport drinks didn't exist.
In a February 2007 report, the CRI estimated that noncarbonated drink sales were increasing much faster than pop and beer sales. In fact, sales of flavored, non-fizzy beverages are expected to outsell soda pop sales by 2010. This is why we need to add these containers to the 10-cent deposit law.
Besides helping reduce litter, expanding the bottle bill will:
• Save energy. Already we are saving 450,000 barrels of oil each year -- enough to fuel 150,000 cars for a month--by returning beer and pop containers.
• Save money. The state annually spends $5.5 million to pick up empty bottles and other trash from roadsides.
• Create jobs. The Michigan Recycling Institute says annual sales of recycled commodities are nearly $2 billion. The 5,000 people employed by this industry earn $137 million each year.
Opponents will say that expanding the bottle bill to include non-fizzy beverages amounts to a tax on consumers. If that's true, then why is the deposit refundable?
Michiganians are rightly proud of our bottle bill. But the law needs improvement. It's time to join other states such as California, Hawaii and Maine that already have a deposit on noncarbonated drinks.
Dennis Muchmore is executive director of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs.
Con: There's a cheaper way to increase recycling and curb roadside litter
William E. Lobenherz
What's that you say? Everybody knows expanding the bottle deposit to water and juice would be a great way to reduce litter and increase recycling? The facts tell a far different story.
If it is our desire to reduce litter and increase recycling, there are other ways to accomplish our goal, which would have much greater environmental benefits for Michigan and at a far lower cost to the public's pocketbook, than extending our deposit law.
First, do we really want to add to the bottles and cans containing food residues and sometimes other nefarious substances that are placed in the same grocery carts that later carry our fresh food purchases? Do we want even more of those dirty containers collected and stored in the bottle room nearby the fresh food items we are about to purchase? Simple logic says no.
Second, at our current level of 20 percent, Michigan's recycling rate falls woefully below the almost 30 percent average of our neighboring Great Lakes States (none of which has a deposit law).
If water and noncarbonated beverage containers were added, the maximum additional recovery would only be another 0.9 percent of the waste stream -- leaving us still a very long way behind the other states.
On the other hand, comprehensive recycling programs, such as the curbside and dropoff systems provided through local governments and waste haulers, typically can reach up to 40 percent of the municipal solid waste stream. Comprehensive recycling programs are a far better alternative than deposits, and they cost 10 times less per unit of material recycled than expanding the deposit law.
Third, study after study has shown that beverage containers, even when including water and other noncarbonated beverages, comprise 10 percent or less of roadside litter.
Other states have comprehensive programs that address all litter, not just beverage containers, and have been shown to be far more effective than a deposit law -- and at a fraction of the cost.
Lastly, our grocery bills are already escalating as a result of fuel and commodity prices. There are costs associated with any deposit scheme. The costs of our current deposit law to the individual customer's grocery bill already amounts to $200 million per year or an extra $20 per Michigan resident annually.
If the deposit law were extended to noncarbonated beverages, the new incremental cost to the shopper would be another $60 million to $100 million annually.
So what should be done? Would it be better to expand refundable deposits by mandating Michigan citizens bear the costs to recycle an additional maximum of 0.9 percent of our waste stream, or would it be better to recycle 10 times more than that by investing the same amount in comprehensive local recycling programs? Pretty obvious, isn't it?
Please go to the Web site at michiganrecyclingpartnership.com and click on its Recycling Makes Cent$ page. It talks about The Penny Plan, an alternative comprehensive recycling proposal that makes sense. Best of all, it will recycle more for less.
William E. Lobenherz is president of the Michigan Soft Drink Association.
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/OPINION01/807110310, http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/OPINION01/807110309
|
