From johntmay on this thread:
One ride was all it took
My wife was opposed to the bottle bill until I took her for a short ride on our tandem bike through a section of the Charles River Basin in the Franklin/Norfolk area. In the space of five miles, she counted over 50 discarded water/juice bottles and maybe five beer cans/bottles.
Say what you will, the deposits work. At the very least, those who do litter will now pay an automatic five cent tax.
Please share widely!
is supposed to do. Is it to capture raw materials for recycling? Is it to cut down on solids towns have to pay to put into expensive landfills? Or, is it to clean up our neighborhoods, messed up by individuals too lazy to hold onto bottles until they reach a receptacle? The answer is probably a combination of all three things, but the littering is what many people see as the face of the problem. I’ll be voting yes on question 2.
last month, and I replied that no, you don’t have to decide that, because the deposit law does all of those things. It’s a feature.
however, I was referring to what motivates someone to support the law, or not. If it’s anti litter, then they may say spending money on cleanup is better. If it’s raw material capture, then broadening recycling pickup might do it. In any case, different people have perspectives on the issue.
Years ago, I did a summer at a university in Germany. Went to a pretty large on-campus party. DJ, dancefloor, drink stations – the works.
When I went up and got a zombie (my first drink of the night) I got charged a 5 euro pfand for my first drink bringing the total to like 8 or 9 euros. When you brought your cup up to get another drink, you simply paid the 3 or 4 euros for your drink and they refilled your cup. Before you left the party, you handed your cup in and got your 5 euros back.
This party had HUNDREDS of people (I’m not kidding, it was huge) and there wasn’t a SINGLE red solo cup on the ground.
…certain people would jump all over me about using anecdotes and supposedly claiming that my experience was universal. Mind you, I’m not personally making this complaint about this comment as I find anecdotes and personal experience to be a valid component of discussion, but the double standard is hard to miss.
Our side also linked to statistics showing a dramatic decrease in litter after the passage of the bottle bill, statistics that expanding it in other states also expanded the rate if recycling, and yes some anecdotes to personalize those abstract data sets.
All Pablo had was “this feels like work, is have to so even more if we expanded it and it’s not fair since my town is already good” along with assertions that somehow it decreases recycling. It’s not a double standard its the same standard-use personal experience to back up the facts.
He used personal experience, but since people agree with the larger point it’s given a pass. Anecdotes DO sometimes, I think, rightfully caution us against being completely beholden to mere statistics, and that social sciences should never be confused with the hard sciences.
but, in fairness christopher, your anecdotes tend to be ones about what’s best for you personally rather then an observation of society at large or what’s best for the greater good.
That difference is not insignificant.
I’ve said several times I wouldn’t bother posting if I really thought something were relevant only to me. For example on this topic it would make no sense to mention curbside recycling if I were the only person who had the privilege of taking advantage of that system. However, there are numerous communities that already curbside at least for their single-family units who it’s reasonable to think are doing just fine with that so when I mention it I’m referring to a significant portion of our state’s population.
The next time we chat in person (or via email) I’m happy to expand. I don’t want to create a “pick on christopher” sub-thread. You contribute far too many positive ideas around here to pick at any downsides.
It shows that deposits, even on disposable cups, can have a huge impact on litter, while causing no significant inconvenience to customers.
His story is not in any way saying that his experience is universal or that he just doesn’t see a problem with some situation that doesn’t affect him.
It is not a claim I make for myself.
Wasn’t directed at you personally, simply a frustration that some people think expanding deposits somehow contracts curbside recycling. I still haven’t seen any evidence for that or even an anecdote to defend that point. It’s just said by the No on 2 crowd as if it were a fact.
…I have not made that particular argument and I don’t think it makes any sense. If we can also expand curbside great, but if I have to choose I think curbside expansion makes more sense than deposit expansion.
I will vote YES not only based on the economic arguments but, more important to me, I trust environmentalists more than the special corporate interests who are opposed.
Also,I had my tap water tested years ago. I live in Wakefield and our water comes from the Quabbin Reservoir. It was found to be even purer than bottled water. I still can’t understand why people would want to pay for bottled water when we have some of the best tap water in the country.
Anyway, my Town has a beautiful Lake Quannapowitt or Lake Q as we affectionately call it. Folks come from all over New England to walk, jog, bike and recreate here. It’s a sin to see all the carelessly discarded water bottles strewn about by the litterbugs.
I say make the polluters pay for disrespecting our land.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I used to live on the South Shore, and I did a fair amount of casual bike riding there. The roads were full of broken glass — beer bottles, mainly, as I recall. It was not great for cars, but was much worse for bicycles. Then the bottle bill passed. I was astonished. Within just a very few weeks the roads were clear.
Just a small incentive turned anti-social behavior into socially responsible behavior. Things like this are golden.