March 23, 2007
Update bottle bill to energize Oregon recycling efforts
CAROL MCALICE CURRIE
Yoo-hoo. No, I'm not trying to get your attention. Well, actually, I am, but I'm also pointing out yet another plastic container I'd like to see added to a modernized Oregon bottle bill.
The Oregon Bottle Bill is being debated again this legislative session. If we don't do something to update this nearly 36-year-old piece of legislation now, we're going to have a future in plastics that not even "The Graduate's" Mr. McGuire could envision.
As 61-year-old Lee Barrett, the chairman of the Association of Oregon Recyclers, likes to say, "If we don't do something soon, I'll be 90 by the time we recycle wine bottles."
Do we really want all that plastic and glass wallowing in the waste stream until then?
This week, some Oregon senators were meeting to consider -- no pun intended -- a watered-down version of what many lawmakers, residents and environmentalists would like to see, which is an immediate increase in the deposit, the addition of all drink containers (except milk), redemption centers outside of grocery stores and a reasonable handler's fee.
Instead, our lawmakers were debating the merit of only adding water bottles to the redemption list, phasing in a 10-cent redemption fee by 2010 and convening a task force to study ... well, to study what really should be a no-brainer.
A little history: Oregon pioneered the bottle bill in the early '70s to reduce litter and encourage recycling. Other states followed, and we all lived happily ever after with cleaner streets, highways, municipal and state parks, schoolyards and ballfields.
Not.
That's because no one was drinking water from 16-ounce bottles at the time, and you still could stick a spoon in yogurt.
Fast forward and we find our bottle bill simply out of step with consumer consumption.
Consider last year, for instance. Oregonians recycled about 32 percent of their water bottles, said Peter Spendalow, a solid-waste policy analyst for the Oregon Department of Environmental Equality. That means more than 125 million of them went into the trash. An additional 160 million containers of beverages such as sports drink, iced tea, Yoo-hoo, juice, energy drinks and potable yogurt went floating as well.
"What happened to our iconic Oregon?" Barrett asked.
Let me answer this one. It's kowtowing to distributors who now make money on unredeemed cans and bottles. It's yielding to antiquated federal franchise territories established back when bottlers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi washed and refilled soda bottles, and its bending to the whims of a few people who must enjoy trash.
Do Oregonians really want to trail California, Vermont, Maine, Michigan and the Canadian provinces on this?
The Golden State, which came to bottle deposits late (1986) now has convenience-zone redemption centers, a handler's fee and a 26-page list of redeemable containers.
And, according to its Department of Conservation Web site, it now recycles nearly 90 percent of its beverage containers. By comparison, Oregon's recycling rate for rigid plastics fell below 25 percent for the first time in more than a decade, according to statistics recently released by the DEQ.
We shouldn't wait. Simply increasing the deposit alone won't work. The AOR supports a bottle bill update that includes all metal, glass and plastic drink containers (except milk), a 10-cent deposit sooner than later, the concept of redemption centers and a handler's fee based on value when sold.
It's time to stop rubbing the bottle and hoping a litter genie will appear and make it all go away. Charge 10 cents for the bottle, make it easy to redeem, ensure that grocers are compensated for their effort and a little magic will happen on its own.
Carol McAlice Currie is a columnist for the Statesman Journal. Contact her at [email protected] Journal.com, P.O. Box 13009, Salem, OR 97309; or (503) 399-6746.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_5491656
