February 7, 2011
Bottle Bill: The Price of Redemption
Is a proposed expansion of Connecticut's bottle returning policy sound environmentalism or another tax? Fairfield County legislators disagree.
Friedrich Nietzsche could have been talking about the proposed bottle bill when he said that all things are subject to interpretation.
Some on the state legislature's Environment Committee want more drinks made eligible for deposit and redemption. But opponents say that’s just another backdoor tax. As such, the committee will soon debate whether to expand the current bottle bill to include juices, punches, teas and sport drinks. It will also ensure a portion of unredeemed deposits are returned to the state.
“We have to ask: Is this another cost onto the consumer?” said state Rep. Tony Hwang, a Republican who represents parts of Fairfield and Trumbull in the 134th House District. “But there is a consumer choice element. It’s not a necessity, it’s a consumer good, it’s an elective choice.”
Hwang, who sits on the Environment Committee, said he is tired of seeing empty bottles littering streets and roads. As such, S.B. 57 has a certain appeal. The bill was co-sponsored by state Sen. John McKinney, a Republican who represents Easton, Fairfield, Newtown and part of Weston in the 28th Senate District.
The Nutmeg State is one of 11 in the nation with a bottle bill, or container redemption program. These laws charge a small deposit on a container at purchase time and then return that money to the consumer upon return of the empty bottle.
While people may recycle their empty bottles, most don’t redeem them, according the Washington, D.C.-based American Beverage Association, an industry group.
And that’s how the five-cent deposit becomes a five-cent tax, according to some local legislators.
“This is a tax pure and simple,” said state Rep. Terrie Wood, a Republican who represents Darien and part of Norwalk in the 141st House District. “The bigger picture here is: Are we trying to get people to recycle more? Or are we looking for another revenue stream?”
Wood delved into state politics because of environmental concerns. She co-founded the Darien Environmental Group in 1990 and served as president of the Darien Land Trust from 2003 to 2007.
“Do I think people need to recycle more? Absolutely. But this isn’t the way to do that,” Wood said.
Connecticut first enacted a bottle bill in 1978. It didn’t get implemented until 1980, 10 years after the first Earth Day. At first it included just beer, malt and soft drinks. Then bottled water.
Opponents to the bottle bill say redemption is inconvenient. Yet those in support say special trips to redemption centers aren’t necessary, as people return to stores to shop anyway.
“It takes a little effort, but it’s not a tax because you get it back,” said state Rep. Fred Camillo, a Republican who represents part of Greenwich in the 151st House District. “You can redeem it and make yourself whole by going back to the store.”
However, Camillo, who hosted last year’s Greenwich Recycles Day, said he would only favor an expanded bill if it keeps the deposit at five cents and doesn’t increase it to 10 cents.
One local environmental group fully supports passage of S.B. 57.
In a statement, Wilton Go Green said the act would "simply expand the bill to include juice, punch and tea and sport drink bottles."
“We support the expansion for its anti-litter and recycling benefit," the agency said. "It will also enhance the ability of charities, civic groups, scout troops and others to raise funds from bottle and can drives. In addition, the State will benefit from increased revenue from unredeemed deposits.”
Even so, most trade groups oppose the bill, calling it a thinly veiled tax. According to the Connecticut Food Association, the revenue gained from that five cents isn’t enough to warrant expanding it.
Chris Gindlesperger, communications director for the American Beverage Association, said bottle bills are really "all about the tax."
"An expansion will raise revenue for the state through unclaimed redemption," he said. "It’s just inefficient policy.”
Beverage containers comprise more than 80 percent of all containers sold in the United States, according to the state DEP. And they are more likely to be emptied away from home, according to the American Beverage Association.
To ensure that bottles don’t end in the trash, but in recycle bins, the ABA said more work to get curbside recycling is needed. The association’s best estimates say about 60 percent of consumers return their bottles for redemption, he said, adding that’s one of the lowest rates in the country.
“It amounts to a money grab by the state and in these tough economic times, people can’t afford to pay more for common grocery items,” Gindlesperger said.
Because bottles often end up in the trash, not in recycle bins, some states with bottle bills, such as Delaware, have recently begun replacing the deposit for redemption with more curbside recycling, he said.
“I run on the street or when I’m on the baseball field I’d see the water bottles. I see less now, so I think it’s working,” Camillo said.
Fairfield County accounts for a significant portion of Connecticut’s 96 miles of coastline. That doesn’t go unnoticed by state Rep. Kim Fawcett, a Democrat who represents part of Fairfield and Westport in the 133rd House District.
The policy of requiring a deposit on bottled drinks "is about more than just increasing revenue," Fawcett said.
"It is about increasing recycling and cleaning up the environment and waterways," she told Capitol DisPatch. "We know that bottles that require a deposit and then return that fee when they are recycled, are bottles that someone takes some effort to return and recycle. Since we are a waterfront state, with lots of streams and waterways that lead into the Long Island Sound, we have to be progressive about setting policy that keeps them pollution free.”
But that just means the state needs to become more proactive about recycling. And give stores more incentives to push their redemption centers, Hwang said.
Still, distributors and manufacturers oppose the deposit-redemption bottle bills. “Of course we can’t dismiss what the manufacturers and distributors are saying,” Camillo said. “We are up against it to retain and attract business so if there is opposition it should be looked at.”
http://trumbull.patch.com/articles/bottle-bill-the-price-of-redemption
