February 23, 2011
Legislators start hitting the bottle
As many of our readers are settling in with this issue of MVN, their state legislators are in a hearing to discuss HB 1247. The primary sponsor of the bill is Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village.
We must point out here that we are not against the idea of recycling. What we are against are government mandated programs that end up costing more than they save and especially those programs that are based more on feel-good issues than on practicality.
HB 1247 is of course (surprise, surprise) being promoted as a funding source for K-12 education and recycling education. How can anyone be against those things?
Briefly, HB 1247 is known as the “Bottle Bill.” Passage would impose a deposit on every glass bottle up to a 64 oz. size at the time of purchase. Stores that sell glass bottles would be required to offer redemption services, unless their retail space is smaller than 5,000 square feet or they offer the bottles only in vending machines or the store is located within two miles of a recycling center. In addition to the consumer deposit, fees and record keeping requirements would also be imposed on the distributors. The bill also requires the registration with the Department of Revenue of all the distributors and manufacturers of glass containers used for things like beer, wine and tea. We have to wonder if that includes green tea. Of course, there has to be bureaucracy.
Many of us remember when pop and beer bottles had a deposit. The bottles were returned to the retailer, loaded on a truck and taken back to the breweries or bottling works, where they were cleaned, checked for cracks, refilled and sent back to the stores. Some of us also remember the stores that could not sell some of the used bottles because they tended to get scratched and look bad on the shelves. That kind of recycling did not work because it had no economic benefit.
Then came plastic bottles, aluminum cans and the “no deposit – no return” labels on many bottles, which had been given the name “glass cans” and fitted with screw-off caps.
Depending on whose figures one uses, the efficiency of glass recycling is questionable at best. If it were extremely efficient, we are confident that some enterprising businesses would be doing much more of it.
The sad fact is that this bill is just another way of taxing the consumer through another method. We have said it before, and likely will not stop saying that, government requirements that consumers pay fees or deposits are nothing more than taxes. Many of us are getting tired of fees, deposits and penalties that ultimately do nothing except expand our various levels of government. We are also getting tired of hearing how this expansion of government is always for the kids and the environment. These demagogues seem to think we will support anything when they apply those tags. We need to advise them otherwise. This bill is bad for business and bad for consumers.
http://www.mountainvalleynews.net/home/3-opinion/1537-legislators-start-hitting-the-bottle-22311.html
