July 5, 2009
Editorial
Bottles: Here's hoping for happy returns
A "redemption center" could help break the bottle bill stalemate
Even after all these years, Oregon can't seem to get its bottle bill right. Nobody's entirely happy with the law that Oregon pioneered 37 years ago and has only modestly improved since then by expanding the nickel redemption fee to cover plastic water bottles.
The problem is that the state has never fully confronted a core weakness in the original design of the law, which required grocers of all sizes to handle the sticky, messy collection of bottles and cans, but gave them no financial help or incentive to do so.
That's left the grocery lobby strongly opposed to every attempt in the Legislature to modernize the bottle bill by increasing the nickel deposit and covering many more of the containers that are now tossed along Oregon roadsides and into landfills. Add in the other powerful political forces -- bottlers and distributors, environmental and anti-litter groups -- and you get the paralysis that left this Legislature, like its predecessors in Salem -- unable to make much progress in reforming and improving the bottle bill.
Into this leadership vacuum steps four big grocery stores in Gresham that have announced plans to create Oregon's first large, industry-financed "redemption center." The new center, which would be built at a former auto dealership at 975 NE Hogan Dr. in Gresham, would be within 2 miles of all four stores. If the grocers are permitted to open the redemption center, they would be allowed to bar returns of bottles and cans at their stores.
Oregonians ought to encourage this experiment, and hope that it appeals to Gresham-area consumers and becomes a success. This is the first time that any of the key players in the bottle-bill debate have tried to break from the status quo. If well-run redemption centers are successful, if consumers take to them, in our view it will then be possible to make other long-needed improvements in the bottle bill, including adding all the teas, sports drinks and other beverages not now covered by the bill.
Recycling advocates worry that the redemption centers will reduce returns because they will force recyclers to make an extra stop outside their regular shopping trips. That's a legitimate concern, but redemption centers could and should offer some advantages, including better service and equipment, and a willingness to take larger numbers of containers. As it stands, returning bottles and cans in busy supermarkets may be "convenient" in some ways, but it is hardly a speedy or pleasant experience.
Yes, there are some risks in moving to redemption centers. Other states have had mixed results in establishing stand-alone centers. It's not clear whether Oregonians will embrace this change. And yes, there are many smaller, rural communities where such centers wouldn't be cost-effective or convenient.
But a joint bottle return center is worth trying. We encourage the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which is taking public comments on the Gresham proposal this month, to approve the plan. If it succeeds, it could be the first long-awaited step to truly modernizing the state's pioneering bottle bill.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/07/bottles_heres_hoping_for_happy.html
