Although the Bigger Better Bottle Bill passed in the state Assembly only to die in the Senate this spring, some lawmakers are hoping to bring it back for consideration next year.
Some see the bill, which was sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Robert Sweeney of Suffolk County, as a way to update the 1982 New York State Returnable Container Act, commonly known as the bottle bill, by assigning non-carbonated beverages such as bottled water, sports drinks, juices and iced tea a 5-cent refundable deposit.
Every unredeemed 5-cent deposit, which in the past would have gone to the distributor and the business that originally sold the product, would be returned to the state and invested in environmental programs such as recycling programs, parks, pollution prevention and water quality improvement.
Although the addition of non-carbonated beverages to the already existing beer and soda deposits sounds like a good idea for many environmentalists, those against the bill see it as nothing more than a way for the state to help to balance the budget by redirecting money from local businesses back into the government.
This is a money grab no doubt, said Jonathan Peirce, who represents New Yorkers for Real Recycling Reform, a coalition of state retailers, businesses and labor groups that support legislation that will improve recycling without increased consumer costs.
`The proposal is a bad thing for New York consumers who can’t deal with an increase in anything, with increasing gas and food prices. Bottles and cans of all beverages make up less than 3 percent of the waste stream and 9 percent of litter on roads.`
According to research done by Northbridge Environmental Consultants, New Yorkers for Real Recycling Reform say that the Bigger Better Bottle Bill would result in an average increase of 15 cents for each bottle and can in stores.
With this increase, the group believes that a case of 24 bottles of juice that would sell for $4.99 would now cost $8.59. The group says this increase in price, alongside the increasing price of food and gas, would hurt rather than help New York consumers who are already feeling a pinch in their pocketbooks. The group is working with the state to make comprehensive recycling goals and would rather work on a solution to recycling that won’t require consumers to go out of their way to save the environment and save money, by investing in curbside pickup, municipal waste stations and recycling inside apartment buildings.
On the surface, the updated bottle bill looks like an effective way to help clean up the environment, but for some in the Assembly, including Assemblyman Bob Reilly, D-Newtonville, the new bill comes off as a burden to Upstate businesses and consumers.
`It’s a regressive hidden tax that is detrimental to small business,` says Reilly, who represents parts of Albany and Saratoga counties. `Advocates say this is not a tax, and it most certainly is.`
Reilly says the proposed bill puts an unneeded burden on retail stores that also exempts small stores in New York City because of `financial difficulties` while leaving Upstate stores to deal with the new tax.
Sweeney, who serves as the Environmental Conservation Committee chairman, and other supporters of the bill, say the negative attention that has been given to the bill is the same the original bill faced in 1982.
`All the arguments that are being used against the new bottle bill are the same arguments against the original bill,` said Sweeney, who says the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
According to Sweeney, about 80 percent of recycled products, at curbside pickup or at redemption centers, are those with deposit refunds attached to the product, while only 20 percent of non-refundable recyclable materials are recycled at curbside or redemption centers, leaving about 80 percent of nonrefundable items to become unsightly litter on our highways, parks and left unrecycled in the landfills. The addition of refunds on noncarbonated beverages would create an incentive for people to recycle more products more often.
`People will recycle when there is a deposit on the bottle,` said Sweeney.
`We know it has worked, even though there was opposition to it years ago,` said Assemblyman Ron Canestrari, D-Cohoes, who represents parts of Albany, Rensselaer and Saratoga counties.
Canestrari said he agrees with Sweeney that the positives of the Bigger Better Bottle Bill outweigh the negatives, such as an increased price in bottled beverages.
`If there is a financial incentive, more people will recycle,` he said. `We must do all that is reasonable to reduce the waste stream and the number of bottles out of landfills.`
Assemblymen Roy McDonald said he voted for an earlier version of the bill with the hope that a small exemption clause that was directed to small stores in New York City would be applied to small stores throughout the state in a future version of the bill. The clause states, `In a city with a population greater than one million, a dealer may limit the number of empty beverage containers to be accepted for redemption at the dealer’s place of business to no less than 72 containers per visit, per redeemer, per day [] the primary business is the sale of food or beverages for consumption off-premises, and the dealer’s place of business is less than 10,000 square feet in size.`
The exemption deals with the small corner grocers of New York City, according to McDonald, who added that 75 percent of New Yorkers live below the city of Poughkeepsie, or `Downstate.`
Because the clause was not eventually changed to include the rest of the state, McDonald voted against the bill, June 11.
`I will not vote for a bill that gives New York City priority,` said McDonald, ` I will not tolerate this idea that New York City is different from New York state.`
McDonald said he realizes the need to clean up the environment, but the exemption of small New York City retail stores creates a situation where New York City is seen as a different entity from the rest of the state.
Joshua Fitzpatrick, communications director for Assemblyman James Tedisco, R-Schenectady, said that there were three major reasons why Tedisco opposed the bill. `One, it really amounts to another big state mandate on small business; two, it really amounts to a hidden tax on state bottlers and distributors; and three, he opposes extra costs to the tune of $80 million to New York state consumers through increased unclaimed bottle deposits.`
While both sides have different reasons for supporting or being against the bill, they agree that cleaning up the environment is a priority that should be taken care of.
`I keep an open mind, and I try to help the environment,` said McDonald. `We all want a better community, we want a cleaner community.`
`There’s a cost to everything and we must weigh that cost to the environment and to society,` said Canestrari.
Sweeney said he hopes to get help from members of the Senate or Gov. David Paterson to get the bill back to the floor of the Senate next year. “