July 19, 2007
Editorial
Bottle deposit bill would strike a blow at N.C. litter
— speak up for it
It’s a great disappointment that members of the N.C. Senate Commerce Commit-tee bowed to powerful lobbying groups and killed a bottle deposit bill for this legislative session. The bill would have been a significant victory in the state’s war against litter.
The committee opened debate on a bill that would charge a 10-cent deposit on beverage bottles, but no vote was taken or apparently even considered due to lack of legislative support.
“It will not be heard anymore this session, because in my opinion, it would not pass,” committee Chairman R.C. Soles, D-Columbus, said, according to the Raleigh News & Observer.
Sen. Doug Berger, D-Franklin County, the bill’s main sponsor, said the people of the state will have to put pressure on their legislators to get such a bill passed.
“I have touched no bill since I have been in the legislature that was more popular with the people — or more despised by the opposition,” he said.
Powerful opponents
The opposition consists of more than two dozen corporations and powerful lobbyists, who flew in a Massachusetts consultant, according to the News & Observer. The consultant said litter is a complex problem that can’t be solved by recycling more bottles.
He recommended targeting advertisements to young adults he said are responsible for tossing out most of the bottles, fast-food bags and cigarette butts that litter highways and other public spaces.
It’s hard to see how targeting advertising at young people, who are no doubt responsible for some, but far from all, of the litter on roadsides would have as much impact as a 10-cent deposit.
Consumers would get their deposits back by taking bottles to private redemption centers, which would recycle them.
The benefits should be obvious. They ought to be especially obvious to lawmakers. At approximately the same time the bottle bill was being deep-sixed, another Senate committee unveiled legislation intended to increase tipping fees and tighten restrictions on landfills in an effort to deal with the growing mountains of garbage being brought to the state’s dumps. The bill would prevent construction of landfills near streams, parks, wetlands, game lands and national wildlife refuges.
Filling up landfills
While primarily intended to discourage private waste firms from building landfills in North Carolina and importing garbage from other states, it will apply to government-operated landfills as well, making it increasingly difficult to start new ones.
As the state’s population continues to grow, everything possible should be done to reduce the flow of garbage into these facilities, which no one wants nearby.
Some 40 to 60 percent of roadside litter is glass, aluminum and plastic beverage containers. These castaways become long-lasting remind-ers of the 200 billion containers sold each year. Of that number, 130 billion are incinerated or wind up as litter or get dumped in a landfill.
It’s not only better for the environment, it’s far more cost-effective to recycle all those containers.
Last year, North Carolina spent $16.6 million just to remove 10.1 million pounds of roadside litter, according the News & Observer.
That’s just a portion of the time and energy spent cleaning up the state’s roads. Countless volunteers spend hours upon hours picking up after thoughtless individuals who think nothing of despoiling North Carolina’s beautiful landscapes. If the amount of litter could be reduced, those volunteers could spend time on other worthy causes.
Taxpayers foot the bill
Stating the obvious, Sen. Bill Purcell, a Laurinburg Democrat said, “What we’re doing now is not working.”
It’s hard to understand opponents’ opposition. Aside from charging the 10-cent deposit, the bill requires nothing of them. They would not have to collect or recycle the bottles. Yet they are willing to allow taxpayers to foot the bill for cleanup and astronomically expensive additional landfill space, all the while claiming that a bottle bill is anti-consumer.
That’s pure nonsense. The consumer can get his or her deposit back. He or she can’t refuse to pay the additional taxes required to clean up roads and build new landfills.
Commerce Committee chair Soles said the bill will still be around during the short session in 2008, and if there’s a groundswell of support, the committee will reconsider it.
This is one of those times when constituents should make their voices heard. Allowing powerful corporations and lobbyists to kill a law that would serve the best interests of the state’s citizenry should not be acceptable to a single voter. Let your senator and representative know you want cleaner streets and highways and fewer landfills.
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770718093
