Conference noted::bicycle

1310.0. "National Bottle Bill" by THEBUS::EDGERTON () Tue Sep 12 1989 20:27

    I've copied this from the usenet because it is relevent
    to the bicyclists who read this notesfile.  If this is
    not the appropriate forum, moderator, feel free to delete it.
    
    I would be curious as to the positions of the various bike
    clubs whos members participate (Nashoba Valley Pedalers,
    7 hills, granite state wheelman, ...)
    
    Dave Edgerton
    
    
    Path: shlump.nac.dec.com!decwrl!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!dptg!att!cbnewsc!danny
From: danny@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (daniel.saathoff)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles
Subject: national bottle bill
Keywords: bottle deposit recycle glass aluminum plastic
Message-ID: <2984@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Sep 89 00:45:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 156
 
 
Following is an article from the September, 1989 issue of
_Bicycle USA_, the magazine of the League of American Wheelmen.
Reprinted without permission.  Key: (parentheses) and [square
brackets] are in the original article, while {curly braces} have
been added by me {Andrew Clarke is L.A.W.'s Government Relations
Director}.
 
TOD (the other dan)
Dan Saathoff
att!ihuxy!danny
 
 
Andrew Clarke's Government Relations
 
Now is the Time For All Good Cyclists To Come To The Aid of...
 
                THEMSELVES!
 
 
There are remarkably few issues on which all cyclists agree.
Special bike paths are tirelessly advocated by some, despised by
others.  For every convert to dynamo lighting there is someone
else who swears by battery lighting or reflectors.
 
On one subject, however, there is little dissent.  Bicyclists do
not like punctured tires and do everything possible to prevent
them.  The League estimated in 1979 that more than half of all
punctures are caused by broken glass, and one can only guess at
the number of near misses and accidents resulting from cyclists
swerving around discarded bottles and other roadside litter.
 
In nine states the situation has dramatically improved.  In the
last two decades, Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maine, New York, Delaware, Michigan, and Oregon have all passed
beverage container deposit legislation.  All have reported a
significant decrease in the amount of roadside litter in general
and bottles and glass in particular.
 
   Iowa: A Department of Transportation study in 1980 showed a
   79% drop in beverage container litter and a 61% drop in
   overall litter along the state's roads following introduction
   of the law.
 
   Michigan: There was an 80% decrease in beverage container
   litter and a 41% decrease overall.
 
   Vermont: Beverage container and overall litter decreased 76%
   and 35% respectively.
 
   New York: The Solid and Hazardous Wast Division reports that
   the state's beverage container litter problem has decreased by
   75%.
 
   Oregon: A 72% drop in container litter has been reported.
 
Other states have tried to pass similar legislation that requires
a small deposit to be paid when purchasing beer or soda.  This
money is refunded when that bottle or can is returned to the
store.  Recent efforts in Missouri, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia have failed, and in each case opponents of the
legislation have spent heavily to defeat the proposals.
 
Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, the first state to pass a bottle
bill in 1971, has introduced a national bottle bill into every
session of Congress.  He has done the same in 1989, but this time
there is an important difference.  In the House of
Representatives he has a new and determined ally in Paul Henry
(R-MI).  Henry's bill (H.R. 586) has already attracted more than
seventy co-sponsors and promises to be the most serious attempt
yet to extend the bottle bill benefits enjoyed in nine states to
all fifty.
 
The League, in keeping with its stated policy, has already fully
endorsed the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act
and has a fact sheet and background paper available on the issue
(see below for details).
 
H.R. 586 would prohibit the sale of carbonated soft drinks, beer,
wine coolers, mineral water, or soda water in beverage containers
unless such a container carried a refund or "deposit" value of
not less than 5 cents.
 
Why Should Bicyclists Get Involved In This Issue?
 
   Better Bicycling: A substantial decrease in broken glass means
   less chance of punctures. Who can argue with that?
 
   Financial Savings: In 1980 the League estimated that a
   national bottle bill would save cyclists up to $160 million in
   puncture repair kits, tires, and tubes.  This did not include
   a cost for the time wasted.  Updating this figure to 1989 to
   take into account the increase in bicycling would raise the
   figure to close to $220 million.
 
   No Cost to the Government: This is one proposal that cannot be
   denied because of cost to the government.
 
Beyond the world of bicycling, there are many social, economic,
and environmental reasons for getting behind such a law and
making it happen.  Aesthetically, all on- and off-road users, be
they non-motorized or motorized, will enjoy a glass-free
roadside.  As landfill sites fill up, a reduction in the solid
waste stream of between 6% and 8% is significant, as is the
energy saved by reusing glass, plastic, and aluminum.
 
Detractors claim this legislation destroys jobs and undermines
recycling efforts, despite evidence that a national bottle bill
would generate up to 100,000 _new_ jobs.  On a state level, this
has already been proven.  According to the New York Beer
Wholesalers Association "...over 3,800 new skilled and unskilled
jobs can be directly attributed to the [New York State] Act's
requirements.  As a result, the state's economy has been boosted
by about $31 million annually."  The experience of states with
bottle bills is that the legislation has acted as a catalyst for
more serious recycling and reuse efforts.
 
As the campaign to pass this legislation mounts, many more
spurious arguments will be heard against it.  It will not be an
easy campaign to win despite opinion polls which show that 80% of
the population favors deposit laws.
 
In June the _Washington Post_ reported that 5 original co-
sponsors of the legislation asked to have their names removed
from the list of supporters after pressure from the beverage
industry.  The forces ranged against us have millions of dollars
to spend.  However, with your support at this early stage,
substantial pressure can be brought to bear on our elected
representatives to co-sponsor the bill.  Over the next 12 months
League volunteers will be asked to join in letter writing
campaigns, a petition, and other actions designed to get this
bill passed into law.
 
Here's What You Can Do
 
1) Start right now by signing your name on the petition on the
inside back cover of this issue.  Circulate the petition among
friends, family, and club members.  For more copies, send a SASE
to L.A.W. headquarters.  {The League of American Wheelmen, 6707
Whitestone Road, Suite 209, Baltimore, MD 21207}
 
2) Write to your members of Congress today.  Ask Representatives
to co-sponsor H.R. 586 and Senators to co-sponsor S. 932.  Thank
those who have already signed on; they will need support for
their position.
 
3) Order your copy of the L.A.W. Bottle Bill Briefing Packet.
Send $5 to receive fact sheets, a background paper, a copy of the
bill, and other essential campaign tools.
 
4) Order more copies of the fact sheet for distribution to clubs,
rides, meetings--any place cyclists are gathered.  Call L.A.W.
for information on bulk orders. {(301) 944-3399}
 
5) Contact the National Container Recycling Coalition, c/o Pat
Franklin, 712 G Street SE, Suite 1, Washington, D.C. 20003.

    I don't like the "Bottle Bill", and I don't litter!!

    Just who will pay the 100,000 people in there new "jobs"?
    	the people who litter, AND ME
    
    ENFORCE the No Litter laws and FINE THE S&#T out of them, then
    the people who litter will pay the NEW litter police(100,000 of
    them), AND do 100hrs of litter pick-up + street sweeping time to the 
    town/city that they crapped on!
    
    That way THEY pay the bucks not me!
    
    note:people who ride race bikes are not the ones who litter, A$$ho%es
    	 who drive pick-ups and drink beer DO
    
    hey thats it, tax pick-ups 1k per year for all the crap that blows
    out of there trucks!
    

    John_who_is_sick_of_paying_for_other_peoples_sh&t_and_who_does_not_like_
    	drunks_in_pick-ups!
    

    .0 seems very sensible to me. Making economic use of resources is going
    to become a more and more widespread concept in the 90s as we begin to
    realise how much the environment is damaged by wasteful consumption.
    Something like this Bottle Bill would result in a real improvement in
    the environment, and that strikes me as worth paying for. Besides, a
    state or country that gets into recycling will develop expertise that
    other states or countries will eventually want to buy.
    
    
    Rod

    re: .1
    
    The litter is only a small part of the idea behind the "Bottle Bill".
    There is a serious problem with solid waste in this country. In a lot
    of cases people are to lazy to recycle; The "Bottle Bill" puts a 
    financial incentive on recycling. 
    
    As the base note pointed out the amount of litter in states with bottle
    bills has gone down. This ends up saving you money in taxes. You're not 
    paying for the clean-up of litter on the street and you're not paying
    for the disposal of solid waste in dumps. As a cyclists you happen to 
    benefit more than most from "Bottle Bills". If the legislation reduces 
    the amount of glass on the streets you'll save the cost of tires,
    tubes, and repairs.
    
    Paul
    

    RE:.1 (mostly)  I hate to over generalize and stereotype folks but
    there are SOME people who ride race bikes who leave their flat tubulars
    behind instead of finding a place to dispose of them properly, pitch
    trash and/or banana peels anywhere convenient and otherwise behave like
    morons.
    
    ed

re: .1

I drive a pickup.

I drink beer.

I do my part to keep the streets clean because people use my truck as a
dumpster.  But hey, I figure it's only a bottle that would have otherwise 
been busted on the shoulder (waiting for me to come by on my other 
vehicle).  

I think the argument presented in .1 doesn't hold water.  It may be right 
in thoery but the fact is, it just doesn't work that way.  It's too bad 
people like us who don't litter need to be burdened with a bill written for 
the other guy, but get used to it; today it's a bottle bill, tomorrow it's 
going to be a paper, glass, aluminum, steel, plastic, .....bill.  Take it 
or take your garbage and keep it.

Craig

ps.  I live in Taxachusetts and I think there are less bottles and cans on
the side of road since the bottle bill.

    I don't buy Veryfine because of their glass packaging.  BTW they
    would still be exempt from the proposed bill.  _KB

>
>    I don't buy Veryfine because of their glass packaging.  BTW they
>    would still be exempt from the proposed bill.  _KB
>
	Sorry, I don't quite understand the logic.  If I'm not
	mistaken, glass is the most easily recycled of all the
	containers that juice might come in.  I buy VeryFine by
	the case from the factory and all the empties get
	recycled.  I don't see why you should boycott them
	because some other bozo might throw one of their bottles
	on the side of the road.  Come to think of it, what do
	you drink?  Almost every beverage I can think of, except
	milk, can be had in glass.

	I agree that juice bottles should be included in any	
	bottle bill.

	chris

    Hiya Rod!
    
    I fully agree with your note and go one step further and argue that
    across the board recycling should be made mandatory in the US.  While
    policies like the bottle bill certainly are beneficial to us cyclists,
    other policies, like paper, glass, and metal recycling are also
    beneficial in that they guarantee an environment free of eyesores and
    contamination.  In my view, the next logical step in recycling is to
    ban the disposable diaper (irregardless of whether it is
    chamois/synthetic or not).
    
    Alfonso

    re .8:  I agree glass is an ideal beverage packaging medium *IF* people
    return them.  Veryfine bottles do not have the 5 cent deposit, and
    hence are all over the place.  After commuting to Littleton for several
    years, I became fed up with the smashed Veryfine bottles on the sides
    of the roads within the first few miles of their factory outlet store.
    I drink and return 2 liter plastic soda bottles.  Have yet to get my
    first flat from them.  In the meantime, until Veryfine changes their
    packaging or lose their deposit-exempt status (which they cried over so
    loudly and got in '83's Mass. bottle bill), I ain't buying their product.
    _KB

    Fact is - the price of any given beverage will go up after
    implementation of a bottle bill, but from an environmental standpoint
    this is a small price to pay. In the long run, I believe that we will
    all save $$. Waste disopsal cost will only go up and landfills will
    only be harder to come by as time goes by. Towns, cities, states
    (citizens, planners) that have the foresite to look ahead will be
    better positioned to deal with the mounting solid waste disopsal
    problems, and bottle bills are one of the most effective ways to
    begin to deal with this very real problem. In Maine we have recently
    passed legislation that will include virtually any beverage container
    except dairy product, in a bottle bill. Also plastic six-pack yokes
    have been outlawed as have those handy-dandy little juice boxes with
    the little straws (because they are made from several different
    materials and aren't recyclable). But anyway, getting back to the
    point in the base note, I'm glad that Maine has passed the nations'
    most aggressive bottle bill because around where I live and ride my
    bike about the only glass that I encounter in the road is that from
    juice and liquor bottles. I'm sure that I will see less if any of that
    kind of stuff in the future. And by the same token, I'm sure that in
    other states (or nationally) that pass some kind of bottle bill, one
    could expect to see far less glass/cans in the road..............paul

    How much the price goes up is a little misleading on the bottlers
    part.  I saw an article on the New York law two years after going
    into effect and it said that the percentage of bottles not returned
    were running about four times the expected and bottlers were making
    a profit from it.  Not only that but they were making a significant
    profit even if 100% were returned because the set-up costs were not as
    high as claimed.

For those of you who feel that all containers should be recycled:

    There is  a  petetion  drive  to get a proposed law onto the Mass.
    ballot  which would require that all packaging materials be either
    recycled  or  recyclable (with all the usual exemptions). For more
    information, drop by the Stow recycling area (newspapers and clear
    glass only) any Saturday between 10 and 1.

--David