Eng 102

12/06/98

Recycling has had a large impact in our community over the past few decades. Rather than throwing all our trash in the garbage can, we, as a community should continue to recycle as much as possible. Not only does it cut down on litter, it can also add to our growing economy, cut down on pollution, and save our raw materials. Arizona currently recycles about sixty percent of its beverage containers, and because only a handful of cities have mandatory recycling programs they are the perfect candidate to experiment with a new recycling program (Bottle-deposit 2). I propose that the state of Arizona put a bottle bill, similar to the one in Oregon, into action. All eleven states that currently have a bottle bill have increased their total recycling percentage significantly. In fact, the "states with bottle bills recycle more than twice as many containers as states without bills" (O’Connell 1). The next few pages give an introduction to bottle bills, the proposed plan of action for Arizona, and the advantages of implementing a bottle bill.

In 1972, the state of Oregon passed the first bottle bill in the nation. During the following two decades, ten states followed their lead (Bottle Bills 3). The primary reason the bill was put into action was to cut down on the state's litter problem; however, the bottle bill proved to be more useful when recycling became a part of everyday lives (Beverage Container 1). Oregon currently recycles over ninety percent of its beverage containers compared to the national average of sixty-three percent. Clearly, the bottle bill has impacted Oregon's success (Stack 30).

The bottle bill is working in Oregon and other states, but what exactly is a bottle bill? A typical bottle bill consists of a minimum refundable deposit on every carbonated beverage container sold, such as soft drinks, beer, wine coolers, and carbonated mineral water. For example, when a customer purchases a fifty-cent can of Dr. Pepper from his/her local 7-11, s/he would end up paying fifty-five cents, which would include a five-cent deposit. At any time after consuming the thirst-quenching beverage, the customer may return his/her can to any store for his/her five-cent refund. This definitely provides an incentive to recycle beverage containers. In fact, in a recent survey I conducted on my plane trip home from Thanksgiving, consumers said they often feel they are getting back free money for recycling. Either because they think of the price of the beverage as fifty-five cents, or because they wait until they have several bottles or cans to return making their refund much larger than the original nickel they put down. The consumers are not the only ones who benefit because the retailers in most states also get reimbursed for the extra labor involved. This basic form of bottle bill is effective and very useful.

The Oregon bottle bill is also beneficial. "Oregon's immensely popular bottle bill has been effective in getting soft drink and beer cans and bottles off the roadways, and boosting recycling. Much of the law's success is due to a system that is easily understood by consumers and manageable for merchants" (Bottle-deposit 1). However, a few of the other eleven states have tried to add to the basic bill making them confusing, more time consuming, less cost effective, and less beneficial to retailers. First, a few states are requiring a variety of deposits for each form of container. For example, a pop can is less than a beer can, or vice versa, which only causes confusion among the consumers and will not be in this proposal. Second, another state has also included non-carbonated beverage containers as well, which opens up the number of shapes and sizes making it more work for both the consumers and retailers. This will also not be a part of the Arizona plan. Finally, two states do not offer their retailers any reimbursement through handling fees consequently causing much anger from the bottlers and retailers. To prevent this, the proposal for Arizona will include a two-cent per container handling fee for the retailers, and will stipulate that all money from non-refunded cans will go to different government projects. To reiterate, this bill is easy, straightforward, and beneficial to the consumers, retailers, bottlers, government, and the environment. Unfortunately, conceiving an idea is not enough; a way must be found to put it into action.

In the state of Arizona in order to take a good idea and transform it into a law, the idea must be given to a Senator or House Representative. Because either a Senator or a House Representative must introduce all ideas, the only way an individual can get his/her idea into the next stage is by writing or calling either of the two. If s/he agrees with the idea s/he has the option to pass it on to a committee. Once in the hands of the committee, they polish it and pass on the newly formed "bill." After the bill is formed, it is presented to the rest of the House or Senate. After three readings, the bill is voted on. If passed, the bill becomes a law, if not most bills disappear (Gnant 9). In the simplified version of the actual process, the senator's staff works on the language to write the bill, which is then discussed in the Senate and House. If after much discussion the Senate and House approve of the bill, it becomes a law. Therefore, the best thing a community can do is show enthusiasm for the bottle bill to the local Senator and House Representative. Another essential item is to find excellent representation when the bill is presented on the floor. This can be accomplished by involving many Senators and members of the House of Representatives across the state. Once presented in a clear and concise manner that shows statistically how cost effective and easy this type of bill is, these men who were elected to protect Arizona's way of life will see how this plan will benefit the state, the citizens, and the environment.

In other states, with approved bottle bills, the biggest advantage lawmakers found were that, it promotes recycling. This, in turn, adds to the economy, cuts down on pollution, and saves raw materials. A few brief examples for each of the side effects of recycling include the following.

First, although the most advertised advantage of recycling is the numerous environmental gains, the economy has also profited. Soon after World War I, when recycling first made its impact, big companies started recycling used products and materials in order to cut manufacturing costs. Since then, companies that produce anything from paperclips to automobiles have been capitalizing on recycling. Another important economic impact has been employment where "many more jobs are created in circulating material than there [are] in one-way disposal" (O’Connell 1). In fact, over 2,000 companies currently have staff to collect, ship, or reproduce recyclables (Recycling News). In Maine, "recycling is a $1.6 billion industry…. employing 8,100 people in good jobs paying on average of over $20,000 a year" (Extension 1).

The second environmental advantage listed is the decrease in pollution. Pollution is indirectly caused when we don’t recycle; the best example is the energy used producing new products from virgin materials. The production of the energy alone, in most cases produces some form of pollution, and by recycling just one aluminum can you save enough energy to run a television set for three hours (Strong 45). Aluminum cans, when recycled use ninety-five percent less energy, produce ninety-five percent less air pollutants, and use ninety-five percent less water compared to cans produced from raw materials (Recycling News). This brings up another product of recycling, conservation of raw materials. Only a few things on this planet are so plentiful that humans could never fully consume all of the materials, unfortunately aluminum, glass, and plastic are not in that category. However, when recycled, the beverage container saves new material that would have been used to produce a new can.

It is clear that recycling can add to the economy, cut down on pollution, and save our raw materials, but how does this bill help recycling and why should Arizona adopt it? As mentioned earlier, eleven states have bottle bills, and of those eleven states the average recycling rate is well above the national average of sixty-three percent (Stack 30). Arizona's current recycling programs are not ineffective, however they could use some improvement. Even with mandatory recycling programs, numerous apartment complex dumpsters are filled with beverage containers ready to be shipped to the city dump. Another area that would benefit if a bottle bill were passed is a number of local fraternities. With a ban on alcoholic kegs from on-campus fraternities, all drinks are purchased in the form of cans or bottles. With no incentives, these millions of containers are just thrown in the garbage, again waiting for the city dump. With this plan, these poor college students would be able to scrounge up the cans and bottles for some pocket money. Unfortunately, while the students may be for this bill, there are some that oppose it.

The largest and most vocal group who oppose bottle bills is the beverage industry because these bills tend to "create substantial additional costs to the beverage industry" (Mandatory Deposit). Although their true main concern is the costs that they may incur, they do raise a few points. Their main public campaign argues that bottle bills "reduce sales, threaten jobs, and are not effective in reducing the waste stream" (O’Connell 1). The industry fears that because of the extra five cents added to each can, many consumers will cut down on their purchases. Truly, an extra five cents, or a whole thirty cents per six-pack, will not have large numbers of consumers running to empty their savings accounts. They also believe that because of the extra costs, they may need to lay off some of their employees. However, as mentioned before, research has shown that bottle bills can create jobs. It is unfortunate that the industry may not capitalize on the newly formed jobs. The opponents also complain bottle bills only address two and a half percent of all municipal solid waste (Mandatory Deposit). This is a very small percent and would be a compelling argument for the opposition, only if municipal waste was the only or the best argument for the bill. Since it is not, this argument is weak. The industry also believes that the only way to prevent the costs is to fight the bill every chance they get. In fact, each time a bottle bill has been defeated in any state, the beverage industry has on average contributed seventy-five times more money for the opposition's campaign, than the cost of the bill's campaign. And unfortunately "the power and political muscle that the beverage lobby wields is pretty hard to fight" (O’Connell 3). Although the beverage industry brings up credible financial reasons that they would suffer, they are only worried about just that, themselves. Ironically, Georgia Sen. Donzella James (D) and others believe that "some of the companies that are complaining the most about it will benefit in the end" (O’Connell 1). The "beverage industry need(s) to assume some responsibility for the products they sell, (they) would rather keep the costs [of disposal] on the backs of taxpayers. What the deposit system does is shift the costs back onto the producers and the consumers, which is where it rightfully belongs" (O’Connell 1).

Arizona, although not among the worst recyclers, could always improve. With the guidance of the states that have successfully implemented bottle bills, Arizona can move forward to protect the state by introducing a statewide bottle bill. Getting a Senator to support this plan and helping him/her take it through the appropriate steps would start improving this already great state. "By putting a refundable deposit of a nickel or a dime on each container, we create an economic incentive that, in turn, produces an environmentally responsible outcome" (O’Connell 1). The power of individuals to impact the environment has been shown clearly throughout recent history. All it takes is an awareness of the problem and faith in a solution. The bottle bill idea has shown that recycling can add to the growing economy, cut down on pollution, and save raw materials.

"Beverage Container Deposits on Non-Carbonated Beverages." www.nsda.org/issues/noncarb

"Bottle Bills in the U.S." www.geocities.com/RainForest/vines/6156/botbills.htm

"Bottle-deposit Plan Should Be Recycled." www.gtconnect.com/gtonline/opinion/1996/october/29/lopi2.html

Extension of Remarks by Congressman Tom Allen On the Introduction of the ‘National Beverage Container Recycling Initiative Act." www.house.gov/allen/s101.htm Nov. 8 1997.

Gnant, Randall. "The Legislative Process in the Arizona State." www.azleg.state.az.us/bill3law.htm

"Mandatory Deposit Laws, or ‘Bottle Bills." www.napcor.com/perspectives_5

O’Connell, Kim A. "Container Deposit Legislation to be introduced in Georgia, Industry Opposition Expected." Recycling Times May 1997: 1-2.

O’Connell, Kim A. "Senator Jeffords Introduces Nationwide O’Connell 1 Legislation." Recycling Times Feb. 1997: 3-4.

"Recycling News." www.vprc.asu.edu/asupc/recycle/news (10 Sept. 1998)

Stack, Gifford E. "Can Recycling: We Can Do Better." Beverage Industry Jan.1998: 30-32.

Strong, Debra L. Recycling in America. Contemporary World Issues. Santa Barbera, California: ABC-CLIO, 1997

.