American Littoral Society
Container Recycling Institute
Environmental Advocates of New York
New York Public Interest Research Group
Sierra Club
WE CAN

NEWS RELEASE

BIGGER, BETTER, BOTTLE BILL SWEEPS THROUGH ASSEMBLY WITH BROAD, BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

Environmental Groups Applaud Assembly and Call On State Senate To Pass the Bill This Year

Environmental groups praised the New York State Assembly for passing the Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill (A2517B-DiNapoli) last night, and called on the State Senate to take up the measure before they adjourn this week.

After nearly two hours of floor debate, the Assembly passed the Bigger, Better Bottle Bill by a vote of 98 to 40 last night, with broad-based bipartisan support. This is the first time since the bill was originally introduced in 2002 that it has been voted on in the Assembly. The bill, which has eight Senate cosponsors (S1290B-LaValle) and strong support among the Senate minority, now goes to the Senate.

“This is a tremendous milestone for the Bigger, Better Bottle Bill,” said Laura Haight, senior environmental associate for NYPIRG. “We applaud the Assembly for taking a strong stand for cleaner communities and more recycling in New York State, and are enormously grateful to Assemblyman DiNapoli for his hard work and leadership. This bill has the backing of farmers, environmentalists, local governments, and many businesses. It’s now up to the Senate to take action on this important measure.”

“Passage of the Bigger, Better Bottle Bill, one of the environmental community’s five ‘Super Bills,’ is a tremendous achievement,” said Rob Moore, executive director of Environmental Advocates. “Assemblyman DiNapoli’s leadership on this legislation is much appreciated and should be applauded.”

Sarah Kogel-Smucker, Legislative Associate, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, said: “The Sierra Club thanks Assemblyman DiNapoli for his work to get the plastic drink bottles and broken bottle glass off our shorelines, playgrounds and streets. We thank the Assemblymembers who voted to protect our children and our environment by reducing litter and increasing recycling. Finally, we call on the Senate leadership to put the interests of our children and the environment first and stop stalling action on the Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill."

Jennifer Gitlitz, research director for the Container Recycling Institute, said, “We applaud the New York State Assembly for its overwhelming endorsement of an updated bottle bill. This vote will invigorate activists and policymakers in Massachusetts, Oregon, Michigan, and Connecticut who are working to add non-carbonated beverages to their deposit systems, and it will encourage people campaigning for new deposit laws across the country. This popular and effective recycling and litter prevention program deserves to be voted on by the full Senate.”

"It's encouraging to know that our representatives in the Assembly responded to the grassroots campaign of the people of New York," said Barbara Toborg, Conservation Coordinator for the Northeast Chapter of the American Littoral Society.  "Common sense carried the day!"

“This is a great victory for those who continue to believe that recycling preserves energy and precious nonrenewable resources,” said Bob Sann, executive director of WE CAN, a nonprofit redemption center serving the needs of the homeless in New York City. “Let's hope that the Senate recognizes that support for a cleaner environment crosses party lines.”

The “Bigger, Better Bottle Bill” (A2517B, DiNapoli/S1290B LaValle) would extend the current 5-cent container deposit law to include non-carbonated beverages like bottled water and iced tea. It would also require beverage companies to return the unclaimed deposits to the state to fund recycling and other environmental protection programs.

The Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill enjoys tremendous popular support, with endorsements from more than 350 local governments, small businesses, and a broad range of groups from across New York State. Polls show that most New Yorkers support this proposal. However, the bill has faced stiff opposition from well-financed industry groups such as beer wholesalers, soda and beverage companies, and supermarket and convenience stores.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 2005

CONTACT: Jenny Gitlitz (research director): (413) 684-4746; (413) 822-0115 Pat Franklin (executive director): (703) 276-9800; (703) 304-3546

---

Stemming the Tide of Trashed Aluminum Cans:

Industry Efforts Fall Flat

Arlington, VA-- Data released late Friday by the Aluminum Association, an industry trade group, reveal that the twelve -year trend of declining aluminum can recycling shows no significant signs of reversing. The industry group reported a can recycling rate of 51.2% in 2004, up from a reported 50.0% in 2003. The latest reported recycling rate is 17 percentage points below the peak rate of 68% reported by the Aluminum Association in 1992.

In accordance with methods used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency[1], the non-profit environmental group Container Recycling Institute (CRI) has calculated that the recycling rate was actually 45.1% in 2004, up less than a full percentage point from 44.3% in 2003. On a per capita basis, CRI said that 3 cans more were recycled per American in 2004 than in 2003. Total consumption (sales) was 341 cans per capita in both years.

CRI research director Jenny Gitlitz noted that 55 billion aluminum cans were wasted (not recycled) in 2004, 9 billion more than were wasted in 2000--810,000 tons of metal that is either buried in a landfill; burned in an garbage incinerator; or littered along the nation's roads, parks and beaches. �To visualize 55 billion wasted cans,� Gitlitz said, �imagine the Empire State Building filled with cans twenty times. It is a quantity equivalent to the annual production of 3-4 major primary aluminum smelters.�

CRI charges that efforts by the aluminum industry and the beverage industry to promote can recycling on the national scene have failed to achieve significant results.

�Three years ago, the industry formed the �Aluminum Can Council' to address falling recycling rates,� Gitlitz said , �and despite the group's activities--including a Mayor's �Cans for Cash' Challenge, a program to recycle cans through Habitat for Humanity, and a kid-friendly website featuring Jimmy Neutron�the tide of aluminum can waste has not been stemmed. These public relation campaigns, and other efforts over the past decade, have had a negligible impact on recycling.�

�The industry insists that curbside recycling and better public relations can get their message across and spur citizens to recycle more,� said Pat Franklin, CRI executive director, �but they remain obstinate about acknowledging the only program proven to recycle 70-90% of the cans sold in any given market: the deposit system.�

�Despite a tripling in U.S. curbside access during the 1990's,� Franklin said, �aluminum can recycling rates have been trending down, due primarily to away-from-home consumption,� she said. �People drinking sodas in the car or at work just aren't going to bring their empties home to their blue bins. It's the financial incentive of a 5- or 10¢ deposit that makes all the difference.�

The number of new curbside programs being developed in American cities has also plateaued due to the high taxpayer costs of running them. Indianapolis is the most recent large U.S. city to consider canceling its curbside program due to low citizen participation and high operating cost.

Environmental Effects of �Replacement Production:�

In addition to the aesthetic and public health impacts of litter, each can that is landfilled or burned instead of recycled must be replaced with an equivalent can made from 100% virgin materials.

�The direct and indirect environmental impacts of replacing 810,000 tons of wasted aluminum cans include about 3.5 million tons of unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions; tens of thousands of tons of SOx and NOx emissions; strip mining over 3 million tons of bauxite; and a host of other industrial activities and pollutants in environmentally-sensitive habitats worldwide,� Gitlitz said.

Economic Consequences of Inadequate Recycling:

Franklin said that there are also many lost business opportunities from the failure to recycle these 55 billion cans. �At today's prices, the cans trashed in 2004 could have fetched about $940 million. It's money down the drain, energy down the drain, and resources down the drain. We call on the aluminum and beverage industries to implement dramatic efforts to increase recycling to 75% or above�rates that are common in deposit states�and a goal the industry set for itself in 1993.�

1- CRI and the US EPA deduct imported scrap cans from the total recycled, since they are not sold in the U.S.., and should not count in the domestic recycling rate. Export and import data are available from the U.S. Department of Commerce.

# # #

About the Container Recycling Institute (CRI): CRI is a 501(c)3 non-profit national organization that studies beverage container sales and recycling trends, and promotes policies to reverse wasting. CRI provides technical information and analysis to students, activists, policymakers, and the media. The organization is supported primarily by foundations, with support from businesses, organizations and individuals.

Americans break record for beverage containers wasted
129 billion bottles and cans trashed in 2004

Washington, DC — Americans threw away a record number of bottles and cans according to newly released numbers from the Container Recycling Institute (CRI). “The decline in recycling is due to two factors,” said Pat Franklin, executive director of CRI, “lack of opportunities and lack of incentives to recycle .”

“In just one year we’ve dumped a staggering 129 billion beverage containers in trash cans instead of recycling bins,” said Franklin, “60% more than in 1990. Those glass, aluminum and plastic containers (411 for every man, woman and child in America) could have been used to make new cans or bottles, fleece jackets, carpets and a myriad of other items.”

“Can and bottle waste is on the rise,” said Franklin, “and there’s a heavy environmental price tag on all that waste.” According to CRI, t he upstream environmental impacts include energy consumption equivalent to 36 million barrels of crude oil per year; the annual generation of 4.5 million tons of greenhouse gasses; the emission of a host of toxics to air and water; and damage to wildlife habitat. The downstream impacts include: an estimated 125 billion glass, aluminum and plastic containers going to landfills and incinerators; an estimated 4 billion beverage bottles and cans littering beaches, parkland and roadsides, streams, lakes, rivers and oceans causing injury to humans, domestic animals, wildlife and marine life.

“The problem, ironically, is not a lack of markets for the materials,” said Franklin, but rather a lack of supply. The containers are not getting from the consumer to the recycling businesses.” She explained that dozens of companies rely on post-consumer bottles and cans as feedstocks to make new containers or other products, but they can’t get the containers. “Some of those companies may go out of business if they can’t get an adequate supply of scrap materials,” she said.

“Consumers, who enjoy a moment of refreshment when they drink their packaged beverage, are for the most part unaware that they are creating an eternity of waste,” said Franklin. “Beverage manufacturers reap huge profits from the sale of one-way, disposable beverage cans and bottles, but don’t want to take financial responsibility for the waste they create.”

Franklin says the Container Recycling Institute will be looking for partners in 2005: consumers, businesses, environmental organizations and public officials, who will work with the institute to reverse the wasting trend.