December 7, 2008
Opinion
Let's broaden the bottle bill for a cleaner Michigan
Thirty years ago, Michigan citizens voted to do something about litter by adopting a 10-cent deposit on carbonated beverage containers, mostly cans and bottles from beer and pop. Today, the success of the "bottle bill" can be counted by the 5.3 billion containers that are returned each year for recycling -- a rate of 97% -- and removed from our roadways and parks.
The success of the bottle bill results from what it did and did not do. It did set a simple rule for citizens to follow: Buy a bottle of a carbonated beverage, deposit a dime, return the bottle and get the dime back. It did not require a new tax, a government program, or a bureaucracy to administer. It did change consumer behavior and turned every citizen into a recycler.
But, while the bottle bill remains a Michigan success story for carbonated beverages, consumer tastes have changed dramatically in favor of bottled water, sport drinks and other non-carbonated beverages. Bottled water sales alone will eclipse pop sales by 2010.
Sadly, non-carbonated beverage containers now litter our roads and parks, making up to 50% of the trash picked up by park maintenance workers at public expense. Because non-carbonated beverage containers are excluded from the bottle bill, consumers have no incentive to recycle them, and only 20% of 1.4 billion non-carbonated beverage containers are recycled each year in Michigan.
A simple, sensible solution to solve today's litter problem is to include non-carbonated beverage containers in Michigan's bottle bill. It is a tiny change in existing law that every legislator can understand, it reinforces established consumer behavior, and it makes use of existing infrastructure for handling beverage containers.
What makes no sense is the present practice of basing Michigan's recycling policy on bubbles!
What also makes no sense is a complicated and expensive retrofit of bottle return machines to reject nondeposit bottles and cans brought in from other states because Michigan pays a higher deposit. Beer and pop distributors are advocating this untried and untested scheme to crack down on bottle return fraud.
Yet there are serious questions about the process and cost of coding cans and bottles and retooling machines. Are taxpayers going to foot the bill? Will so-called "fraud control" impose millions of dollars in costs on retailers who are already struggling? Why burden mom and pop stores and local supermarkets that have never been compensated adequately for keeping Michigan clean over the past three decades?
Fraud is already a crime in Michigan, so why not let authorities deal with it under existing law?
Deposit fraud is a tiny problem being chased by a costly solution. It's like hunting sparrows with howitzers.
Members of the Michigan Recreation and Park Association believe that extending the bottle bill to non-carbonated beverage containers is an issue more worthy of the Legislature's attention.
Public parks are a key component of the quality of life in every community. Keeping them beautiful and litter-free benefits every citizen. By getting the bubbles out of the bottle bill, we can get bottle litter out of our parks and reduce maintenance costs as well. We are proud to team up with Michigan United Conservation Clubs to achieve this goal for cleaner communities and a cleaner state.
http://www.freep.com/article/20081207/OPINION02/812070322/1070/OPINION
