Put this question to voters: Should water bottles have deposits on them, like soda and beer bottles do? That passes overwhelmingly.
But noooooooooo. Somebody had to put THIS QUESTION to voters.
This proposed law would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law, also known as the Bottle Bill, to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic non-carbonated drinks in liquid form intended for human consumption, except beverages primarily derived from dairy products, infant formula, and FDA approved medicines. The proposed law would not cover containers made of paper-based biodegradable material and aseptic multi-material packages such as juice boxes or pouches.
The proposed law would require the state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to adjust the container deposit amount every five years to reflect (to the nearest whole cent) changes in the consumer price index, but the value could not be set below five cents.
The proposed law would increase the minimum handling fee that beverage distributors must pay dealers for each properly returned empty beverage container, which was 2¼ cents as of September 2013, to 3½ cents. It would also increase the minimum handling fee that bottlers must pay distributors and dealers for each properly returned empty reusable beverage container, which was 1 cent as of September 2013, to 3½ cents. The Secretary of EEA would review the fee amounts every five years and make appropriate adjustments to reflect changes in the consumer price index as well as changes in the costs incurred by redemption centers. The proposed law defines a redemption center as any business whose primary purpose is the redemption of beverage containers and that is not ancillary to any other business.
The proposed law would direct the Secretary of EEA to issue regulations allowing small dealers to seek exemptions from accepting empty deposit containers. The proposed law would define small dealer as any person or business, including the operator of a vending machine, who sells beverages in beverage containers to consumers, with a contiguous retail space of 3,000 square feet or less, excluding office and stock room space; and fewer than four locations under the same ownership in the Commonwealth. The proposed law would require that the regulations consider at least the health, safety, and convenience of the public, including the distribution of dealers and redemption centers by population or by distance or both.
The proposed law would set up a state Clean Environment Fund to receive certain unclaimed container deposits. The Fund would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, to support programs such as the proper management of solid waste, water resource protection, parkland, urban forestry, air quality and climate protection.
The proposed law would allow a dealer, distributor, redemption center or bottler to refuse to accept any beverage container that is not marked as being refundable in Massachusetts.
The proposed law would take effect on April 22, 2015.
A YES VOTE would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic, non-carbonated drinks with certain exceptions, increase the associated handling fees, and make other changes to the law.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding beverage container deposits.
A lost opportunity, in my arrogant opinion.
Jasiu says
Just curious. I’m voting yes on 2 and would vote yes on this, but your argument would be more credible with some data to back it up.
Peter Porcupine says
I would vote Yes on putting a deposit on water bottles, et al.
I am voting against the question due to the automatic hike in the deposit amount per the CPI, ‘never to drop below 5 cents’. Just like question one, it seeks to put increases on autopilot.
Interestingly, it is the only section of the bill that neither side mentions – YES people hope for more money for the new enviornmental slush fund to be established from unredeemed deposits (and I have no problem with such a fund per se, as that is why the money was collected – better that than the General Fund). NO people hope to get more money for their share of recycling down the road.
Like many people who will vote Yes on One, I am voting against question two as a matter of principle, not because I am against the premise.
THAT is the overreach.
sabutai says
I am a liberal as much as anyone else, but at some point the nanny state has to stop. I have curbside recycling like most people, and when I didn’t I hauled it to the landfill. I see the empty bottles on the streets, too — as I see empty soda cans and bottles for which people paid a nickel. I get some people are so convinced of their priorities that they will do most anything to push people to do things, but this is more than a nudge.
Christopher says
I voted for it because of the stats on recycling frequency, but this proposal has always struck me as doubling down on the old way, and I suspect anyone with single-stream curbside recycling will agree with that assessment. Once this fails as I predict I really hope the General Court hunkers down and pushes to bring curbside to every residence in the Commonwealth which has the dual benefit of being efficient and what it seems the people prefer.
Peter Porcupine says
.
Trickle up says
or rather swears.
And Jim, the long passage you quote is not “the question” that proponents cluelessly wrote to put before the voters.
It is the summary of the effect of the law, written by the Secretary of State as required by law.
JimC says
Here’s the question though:
So when voters look to the summary, what’s quoted above is what they’ll see.
Trickle up says
But that’s not the tactical blunder, the “lost opportunity” you make it out to be. It’s just the way it is, by law.
Your wording, for instance, would not be allowed.
JimC says
My point is not that I’m qualified to write legislation, or that my hypothetical wording is to be taken literally.
My point is, the proposed law tries to do too much. It’s overly complicated and will fail as a result. The lost opportunity is the chance to include water bottles and such, which was a weird exemption to the original law.
edgarthearmenian says
and Scituate almost every day in good weather. Yes, i see the occasional bottle or can on the roadside; but what about the real rubbish that people throw out of their cars? Empty Dunkin and Starbucks cups, fast food containers, and empty cigarette packs (which really surprises given the reduction in the number of smokers today). From what i see, this proposal in no direct way attacks the problem of roadside pollution. I suggest that the Greenies pay more attention to the areas which are used as dumping grounds by irresponsible people. And as jimc has noted: keep it simple)))
crich says
When recycling is sold, it is sold separated. In fact, the less contaminated it is, the more money you make. While single-stream is convenient, it has degraded the quality of recycled paper so that it is practically worthless junk, and made glass impossible to recycle. If you are trying to maximize recycling, why would mix all the recycling together when you just have to separate it out again? A deposit system at least separates out the beverage containers. The problem is the huge and growing volume of petrochemical-based plastic (of which there are at least 7 incompatible resins). These did not even exist as consumer products 40 years ago. The latest problem created by the manufacturers is the bottle labels that are now plastic film with a synthetic adhesive. This is creating another step in processing and is not helping the environment. Why is everyone listening to the biased and well-funded opposition to Question 2?
Christopher says
…because frankly their message matches what is already the experience of many people. Assuming the goal is to maximize recycling, without regard to who pays for what and how much, you absolutely do want to make it as convenient and effortless as possible. That doesn’t mean there can’t be some sorting on the consumer end. As of when I moved out of my town with curbside we had a bin for glass and plastics, but still bundled paper separately, usually in a paper grocery bag. Even then we usually put the bag of papers inside the recycling bin. This was still an improvement over the earliest days of curbside when only certain numbers of glass and plastic were taken and you had to sort by number. Why get nickeled and dimed when you can just put it out to the curb?
With both this and the gas tax I think I have discovered the difference between progressives and liberals. Progressives want to make the world a better place and think they have things all figured out, and will clobber you with data to prove their point. Liberals, while often sharing goals and values with progressives, do better at remembering the real world consequences for people on the ground of the best-laid plans.
BTW, the other reason people listen is that it’s the only message out there. I don’t believe I have seen ads urging a yes vote on 2.
jconway says
You can afford losing the extra nickle, you can afford continuing to do what you are doing, and for those people that don’t do what you are doing-well, this is the law that forces more of them to do so. Is it utopia-no, but we can pass better bills and modify existing ones with the passage of Question 2. We are less likely to touch the issue if the voters reject a small scale reform such as this one at the polls. Ditto Question 4.
crich says
Everyone thinks it is so convenient to be able to finally mix all the plastic resins together. But you should know that while Plastics #3 (the toxic PVC), #5 (polypropylene) and #6 (the toxic polystyrene that is being increasingly banned in Mass.) are collected, they are not actually recycled. #7 (other) is by definition a mixed unrecyclable class. All of these have low to negative value even after separation. Only #1 and #2 are recycled and then really just bottles (not random packaging). #4 is sometimes recycled, but again it has low value. All these other plastics are tolerated in order to extract the #1 and #2 bottles. Only aluminum and corrugated cardboard have any consistent value and consequently high recycling rates. These also have the benefit of being made of natural materials instead of petrochemicals. Things to keep in mind when buying goods or voting on Question 2 :-).
Christopher says
I didn’t realize the others weren’t recycled at all. Keeping track of those numbers is relatively low effort. Which numbers are the containers covered by the bottle bill, either current or proposed? Meanwhile, we should figure out a way to recycle the others or reduce/eliminate their use.