May 8, 2000
Bottles & Big Brother
I agree with Pat Franklin's opinion on bottle bills more than Luke
Schmidt's ("Deposit pros, cons" March 6, page 8). Schmidt
appears to be viewing the issue from a solid waste perspective. His
promotion of curbside collection programs is flawed. I cannot recall
an operator of a curbside program stating that their program is financially
successful. The contrary viewpoint is the mantra of the operators.
While Schmidt claims the California program is expensive, there is
really no basis for comparison. In the other deposit states, the distributors
control the money, and they determine the redemption rates with no
public scrutiny. In California, the government administers the cash
flow and determines the redemption rates based on verifiable numbers.
The manufacturers claim it is expensive, but perhaps they should read
your column in the Jan. 31 edition, "The collapse of responsibility."
Schmidt's claims are:
- Deposits are expensive
because a huge investment in new trucks is required.
Isn't that the mantra of operators of curbside collection programs, the system he advocates? - Food retailers
are required to redeem containers in the store.
The California program does not require food retailers to redeem containers in the store except as a last resort. Since 1988, the first year of the California program, no retailers have had to redeem containers on a continuing basis. - Deposit programs
lead to decreases in soft drink and beer sales.
Californians purchased 12.5 billion beverage containers in 1988 and 13.1 billion in 1998. There were very few non-soft drink or beer containers in the program then. Another 2 billion were added beginning in 2000. Perhaps the sales reduction is due to the change in consumer buying patterns. - Deposit systems
result in a loss of sales to adjoining states.
This may occur, but only on the border areas, and it would probably not have a large impact.
Joseph Massey
Coalition of Independent Recyclers
Anaheim, California
