GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Archives] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

[greenyes] RE: [heur] Re: [greenyes] CT bottle bill expansion mentioned in Worcester T&G

Looks like we're both a bit off on that one. It should be "hear, hear"
according to I guess
I'm just a bit of a yahoo.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Morin [mailto:mikemorin@no.address]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Eileen Sousley; Green Yes
Subject: Re: [heur] Re: [greenyes] CT bottle bill expansion mentioned in
Worcester T&G

I appreciate that, but isn't it "hear here"?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eileen Sousley" <EBSousley@no.address>
To: "Mike Morin" <mikemorin@no.address>; "Green Yes"
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:50 AM
Subject: RE: [heur] Re: [greenyes] CT bottle bill expansion mentioned in
Worcester T&G

Here, here!

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Morin [mailto:mikemorin@no.address]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 5:26 PM
To: Green Yes
Subject: [heur] Re: [greenyes] CT bottle bill expansion mentioned in
Worcester T&G

There otter be a deposit on all containers (e.g. pickle jars) and

For example, when you buy an eraser, you could get it out of an old
fishbowl, not laminated in a paper and plastic mini-package hanging on a
metal display case.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but Corporations should somehow
be made responsible for all the unnecessary packaging (waste) that
occurs in today's globalized (long transport) consumer society.

We need to go back to producing more things on a local level. Then we
wouldn't need anway near as much packaging as currently occurs in our
oil-junkie distribution system.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Franklin" <pfranklin@no.address>
To: "Green Yes" <greenyes@no.address>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 2:13 PM
Subject: [greenyes] CT bottle bill expansion mentioned in Worcester T&G

> Those interested in beverage container deposit issues might find this
> interesting. Only 2 states (Maine and California) have expanded their
> to include non-carbonated beverages. This would be an exciting
> breakthrough for container deposit supporters everywhere.
> Front-Page - Sunday's CT Post
> Battle over bottles brewing in Capitol
> Lines drawn on deposit expansion for plain water
> KEN DIXON dixon.connpost@no.address
> HARTFORD - A battle royal is shaping up over a controversial expansion
> the bottle-deposit law that would require new, nickel deposits on
> of bottles of non-carbonated water sold in Connecticut.
> First-term Senate President Pro Tempore Donald E. Williams Jr. is
> the weight of his office behind the legislation, which nearly died in
> Environment Committee, but was massively amended and revived in the
> on April 20.
> After passing the Senate 31-3, it's now sitting on the House calendar,

> where, Capitol insiders believe, it doesn't have enough votes - yet -
> pass the 151-member chamber.
> Indeed, Williams, D-Brooklyn, hosted a Capitol reception Thursday
> for environmental activists, whom he has asked for help. He said that
> industry "disinformation" through a late-breaking but high-powered
> lobbying campaign, is attempting to kill the bill in the House.
> Opponents of the bottle-deposit expansion include grocery and
> convenience-store owners and beverage bottlers and distributors, many
> whom believe that the current bottle-deposit program should be
> and
> the curbside-recycling program expanded.
> Store owners led by the Connecticut Food Association say the
> deposit-return program is messy, smelly, unsanitary and costly enough
> without
> it
> to include millions more water bottles each year.
> But Williams, a former chairman of the Environment Committee and Rep.
> Richard Roy, D-Milford, a current co-chairman, said the bill's a
> way
> to take the polyethylene terephthalate (or PET) plastic bottles out of
> waste stream and away from the state's solid waste incinerators.
> "There's no question that we have a fight in terms of the soda lobby
> bottlers versus environmentalists," Williams said in an interview last

> week.
> "In the lobbying campaign and the radio ads that are being run,
> trying to convince people it's a tax and the costs were astronomical."
> With no incentive to recycle the now-ubiquitous water bottles, more
> more
> are ending up littering beaches, soccer and Little League fields and
> highways. Ironically, Williams said, the market has never been higher
> PET plastic, which is used to manufacture fleece sweaters and other
> synthetic fabrics. Williams and Roy agree if the curbside recycling
> program includes all bottles and cans, more people will simply throw
> away the containers.
> "Forty to 60 percent of roadside litter are portable beverage
> Williams said. "Curbside recycling is great for your spaghetti-sauce
> and cans of Campbell's Soup, but portable beverage containers don't
> caught."
> Roy, in an interview Friday, conceded that there doesn't seem to be
> support in the House, which has a 99-52 Democratic majority.
> "Would it pass today? I don't know, but I certainly hope we vote on it
> the end of next week," Roy said. "It's Sen. Williams' bill and it's
> important."
> Roy agreed that lobbyists are pulling out the stops and using
> "fear-mongering" tactics to drum up opposition. "They're saying, Even
> though we produce, deliver and sell the stuff, let's make taxpayers
> pay the bill,'
> " Roy said. "They say curbside recycling is cheaper, but it's not.
> don't want to take responsibility for putting the trash in the
> Roy, as committee co-chairman, voted against an amendment that
> gutted the bill, restricting the expansion of the redemption law until

> surrounding states adopted similar legislation.
> Williams stripped the amendment in the Senate, reverting it back to
> original bill and sending industry lobbyists into high gear.
> Betty McLaughlin, director of environmental affairs for the
> Audubon Society, warned last week that opponents, including Coke,
> and
> Poland Spring, all of which are major players in the state's lucrative

> non-carbonated water industry, are spending more than a
> dollars to help defeat the bill.
> "These giant corporations and trade associations have hired the most
> influential and best-paid lobbyists at the Capitol," McLaughlin said.
> "Together these lobbying firms have 25 to 30 professional lobbyists
> spending all day pressuring legislators to vote against the
> environment."
> But Grace Nome, president of the Connecticut Food Association, who
> represents supermarkets and groceries, said the bill is ill conceived
> anti-business.
> "Expansion of the bottle law is probably the worst thing you could do
> the
> grocery industry," Nome said last week, adding that it could cost the
> state's grocers another $16 million a year to expand current
> equipment and accommodate the millions of additional plastic bottles.
> "We learned to manage what we've had to manage, but we put our cost to

> manage the bottle law on your food," Nome said. She said that because
> usually easier to redeem containers at groceries that liquor stores,
> food industry redeems 2.5 times what they sell.
> "The point is, that maybe people who are supporting this don't
> the complexity of the issue," said Nome, a 26-year veteran of Capitol
> lobbying. "Fifty percent of the cans and bottles in the garbage are
> deposit bottles."
> Nome said she had hoped that the bill would have come up from a House
> debate last Wednesday or Thursday, when she believed there weren't
> enough
> to
> approve it.
> "We have offered as a industry to sit down and talk about litter,"
> said. "The ShopRite in Milford has offered to pay for the cleanup of
> Milford beaches."
> Adding water bottles to the recycling stream will exacerbate an
> dirty business.
> "The grocery industry does more for the people of this state than
> else," Nome said, predicted that if the bill passes and takes effect
> Jan. 1, water bottles from New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island
> be
> redeemed by the thousands at Connecticut supermarkets.
> Paul Nonnenmacher, director of public affairs for the Connecticut
> Resources Recovery Authority, which operates the state's solid-waste
> programs,
> Friday the CRRA backs the bottle-bill expansion.
> But it would come at a price to taxpayers, because the sale of
> lowers tipping fees for municipal garbage trucks at the regional
> garbage-to-energy incinerators, he said.
> "We support the idea, but as we had told the Environment Committee,
> we
> testified, there's going to be a revenue loss by taking away these
> recyclable commodities, it will have an impact on tip fees,"
> Nonnenmacher
> said.
> He said that the CRRA would probably become more actively in favor of
> legislation, if it included a provision to pass along a $20
> windfall to the authority. It's called "escheats" and it coincides
> the
> unclaimed bottle deposits that distributors and bottlers retain from
> bottles and cans that are tossed into the waste stream, rather than
> redeemed,
> year.
> Nonnenmacher said the CRRA is eagerly awaiting a state Department of
> Environmental Protection study of the state's solid-waste projects and
> creation of a new solid-waste management plan by the end of the year.
> "This is an opportunity for the DEP to take a holistic approach," he
> "because each of these items is a piece of a bigger puzzle."
> Ken Dixon, who covers the Capitol, can be reached at (860) 549-4670.

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

[GreenYes Archives] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]