NYPIRG says litter survey shows need for Bigger Better Bottle Bill
-
- February
- 14
The New York Public Interest Research Group held press conferences around the state today to release results of its latest litter survey  and again seek support to expand the Bottle Bill.
The bill currently requires a 5-cent deposit on soda, beer and other carbonated drink containers.
NYPIRG is among those seeking to expand the bill to include water bottles, juice drinks and other non-carbonated beverages.
According to NYPIRG, the survey shows that beverage containers made up 35 percent (by volume) of the litter collected.
It also shows that non-deposit containers outnumbered deposit containers by nearly 2-1 margin.
Further, it shows that 21 percent of the litter, by volume, was non-deposit containers that would be captured if the Bigger Better Bottle Bill was passed.
Worth pointing out, grocery store owners and other shopkeepers have been leery of an expanded bill because they don’t want to lose any additional store space nor be responsible for managing even more drink containers.
Beverage-makers also oppose the bill, which would require the companies to return any uncollected nickels they now keep when buyers fail to redeem their bottles in favor of placing them in curbside recycling bins or just throwing them away.
The companies must also help manage the collection of any additional containers, in addition to the containers they already manage. They have argued that curbside recycling is working well and the bill need not be expanded.
NYPIRG and others, including bill supporter Gov. Eliot Spitzer, have said the expanded bill will help reduce litter, and they want any additional revenue from unredeemed bottles to help pay for state environmental programs.
Here’s a PDF of the survey results.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm by Laura Incalcaterra.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Print
| 
Email
Journal News staff writer Greg Clary writes Earth Watch, reporting on environmental issues in the lower Hudson region. Clary has been a reporter, editor and columnist at the Journal News since 1988 and has covered police and courts, transportation, municipal government, development and the environment in the Lower Hudson Valley, among other topics. 
Laura Incalcaterra covers the environment, open space and zoning and planning issues for The Journal News. A Boston College graduate, Laura grew up in Rockland, attended East Ramapo schools and has worked for The Journal News since 1993. Laura has written features and covered North Rockland, crime, government and a host of other issues.
Mike Risinit covers Patterson and Kent in Putnam County, as well as environmental topics touching on the Hudson River and the Great Swamp. Risinit has been a reporter at The Journal News since 1998.
I would like to go on record to say this is and has always been an UNFAIR tax. thats exactly what it is because of our recycling laws etc. The Govt knows full well that we arent returning most of our bottles. This sounds slightly illegal to me. The bottle bill should be disbanded. Charging extra for what????????????!!!!!
So the question is do we allow Sptzer to do this or do we send him our letters now?
In response to Steve C.’s comment:
The 5 cent deposit is NOT a tax hence the name DEPOSIT. The public loses no money. It is a very successful program and 70% percent of these deposited containers ARE recycled. Illegal you say ?? Not in the least, this bill was passed by legislators,uh not drug dealers so illegal is completely out of the question. If this bill were to be discontinuated, the amount of bottles actually recycled would decline drastically. This charge that you complain of so much actually costs you NOTHING. Don’t waste your time sending your letters because Gov. Spitzer is for the Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill as well as most New Yorkers.
Odd then I should just toss the blue box away in front of my house that i use to recycle my goods with.
thats nice.. I am glad you mind paying an extra dollar or more for your case of juice boxes for your kids. To fund the governors pocket.
you only get the money back if you go to the machines. but because people have the blue box and are told by county to recycle bottles etc. they do so. and the govtr is counting on you as the consumer NOT to get your money back so they have extra cash.
Now if you cant see that as sketchy .. then you probably voted to pay for water as well.
yeah just put a surplus charge on top of already taxed dollars because well it helps us..
spin it all you like… its a tax ….oh i am sorry a surplus temporary charge.. that the govt plans and makes it very difficult to get back..
To and to support my observation that this is a tax. lets look at the definition of a tax ; and there is an initial cost. and that money lost generates interest for the govt which u dont see. then u go and get your money back but they have already recycled the money into bonds etc.. :
tax /tæks/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[taks] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2.a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
–verb (used with object)
3.(of a government)
a.to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.).
b.to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.
4.to lay a burden on; make serious demands on: to tax one’s resources.
5.to take to task; censure; reprove; accuse: to tax one with laziness.
6.Informal. to charge: What did he tax you for that?
7.Archaic. to estimate or determine the amount or value of.
–verb (used without object)
8.to levy taxes.
[Origin: 1250–1300; (v.) ME taxen
First off, you would still need your blue bin. And I don’t mind paying a deposit because I get it back. Sure the government enforces recycling but you are given the option of curbside or returning containers to your local redemption center. The unclaimed deposits would not be funding the Governor’s pocket. Read in between the lines because the text of the bill reads that these unclaimed deposits would be transferred to the Environmental Protection Fund. So while you’re looking for more definitions to post in response, you should check out last years proposed bill to expand the bottle bill.
if i need my blue bin and i need to recycle bottles and good luck getting to redemption center , glad u have the time. I bet you are in politics. good for you. this is why the country is the way it is.. oh for security i will give up my rights.
oh for convenience please tax and charge me more and take more of my taxed dollars away.
Linda, if a huge chunk of money wasnt taken from our pay checks every pay period then these extra charges VAT taxes etc. make sense. BUT taxes are taken out. Stat/Govt/Local/County/Property.
I am so glad you make enough to lose 1-3 dollars on buying a case of water/juice/milk etc for your children and yourself. because if this bottle bill is excepted you better believe ANY liquid will be taxed carton or bottle. so you keep believing in the system because you are probably paid by the county and sitting pretty. If not then i have no idea why you think this is a good idea. No one else I know thinks it is…