August 6, 2002
|
Mr. Allan Gerlat, Editor
Waste News
1725 Merriman Road
Akron, OH 44313-5251
Via Fax: 330-836-1692;
Via E-Mail: editorial@wastnews.com
|
|
Dear Editor,
In Steve Toloken's article, "Bottle
talk," (July 22nd), the discussion of the proposed national bottle
bill omits issues of concern to the public. It neglects to mention
that for the first time in U.S. history a national bill encourages,
in part, refillable beverage containers. Compared to non-refilling
systems, refilling systems have many advantages including reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions, solid waste generation, and energy
consumption. Refilling eliminates the need to find markets for
green and brown glass bottles and plastic bottles. It represents
the zero waste (or darn close to it) approach. On the economic
side, refillable containers are far cheaper than their one-way
counterparts. In Denmark, for instance, refillable 500 ml-PET
bottles are 15 times cheaper than nonrefillable bottles (on a
price per filling basis).
Toloken's article and the Waste
News editorial, "Bottle it for a while" (July 22nd) point to one
industry estimate that a national bottle bill might cost $4 billion.
We think this figure is grossly inflated and misleading. It does
not take into account the environmental savings as well as the
potential for a deposit system to cover its costs through refilling,
the avoided costs of disposal, and unredeemed deposits, or the
float. In New York State $70 million to $80 million is kept in
industry coffers. Nationally the float could be between $1.3 billion
to $2 billion. The current bill allows for industry to keep this
huge sum if it reaches an 80% recovery level. A better approach
would be to sequester these funds for investment in recycling
and a refillable bottle infrastructure. In California, the float
is used for projects relating to beverage container recycling
and litter cleanup. Furthermore, the argument that a bottle bill
will take away revenue from existing recycling programs is a red
herring. In reality, any loss of revenue to local programs will
be more than made up for by the avoided cost of collecting bottles
and cans in trash and in recyclables. These avoided costs could
total $300 million a year. We have documented many cost-effective
recycling programs in bottle bill states.
Pointing to the foundering economy
and continued concerns of terrorism, your editorial states the
climate is wrong to pass a national bottle these days. We disagree.
A bottle bill could create 100,000 new jobs boosting the national
economy by $800 million. National security ought to encompass
energy and resource conservation. Container recycling rates are
dropping. Landfills are not safe and do not cover their true post-closure
and cleanup costs. It's time the industry stopped fighting beverage
container deposits, a tried and true method to divert bottles
and cans from disposal.
Sincerely,
|
Neil Seldman
President
|
Brenda Platt
Director, Materials
Recovery
|
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
927 15th St. NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone 202-898-1610
Fax 202-898-1612
http://www.ilsr.org