Editorial

Bottled-up bill

The protestations of big-money lobbyists to the contrary, having a law requiring deposits on discarded glass and plastic bottles makes good sense in both promoting recycling and discouraging litter. A bill doing that failed to make the grade in the legislature, however, thanks to the professional arm-twisters representing convenience stores, restaurants, bottling companies, beer companies, petroleum marketers and others who think a bottle bill, as it's called, might cost them some money or be a hassle.

The bill would have put a 10-cent deposit on bottles, which people could have gotten back at "redemption centers." It wouldn't have cured the terrible littering problem in this state. But it might have helped because there would have been some incentive for people to hold on to their bottles. Plain common sense says that if you put a 10-cent deposit on something that can be traded for cash, there are going to be fewer of those somethings lying around on roadsides.

Ah, but the bill sponsored by state Sen. Doug Berger, a Youngsville Democrat, sort of faded away in the Senate Commerce Committee after some debate. It went, as they say on Jones Street, on the shelf. Sen. R.C. Soles of Tabor City, another Democrat, said it would still be around in the short session of the legislature next year. "If there's a groundswell of support for it," he said, "we'll consider it." Now there's some courageous lawmaking for you.

Berger noted that more than two dozen corporations and lobbyists were fighting the measure. Opponents said that people need to take care of most recycling at home, where they consume most beverages, and that recycling programs covering all sorts of recyclables are best. Those programs are important, to be sure. But would a bottle deposit stop people from recycling their newspapers, cardboard and tin cans? The opponents didn't make a very good case.

Of course, they didn't need to. As long as they could gather together and make legislators' knees shake with fear of offending big-money interests, they could merrily kill off just about anything that wasn't backed by a "groundswell."

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/story/663473.html