06-25-2008, 10:16 PM
MUCC asks for expansion of bottle deposit law
[url "http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Brooke%20Meier&-nothing"]Brooke Meier[/url]
[right][/right]
![[Image: z.gif]](http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/images/z.gif)
June 25, 2008 - The Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) wants Michigan lawmakers to expand the state's bottle return law to cover water, sports drink, and other non-carbonated beverage containers.
MUCC, the largest non-profit statewide conservation organization in the nation, was the driving force behind the original bottle deposit law adopted by state voters in 1976.
"We've enjoyed 30 years of enormous success," said Dave Nyberg, a resource policy specialist for MUCC.
MUCC announced last week it wants lawmakers to amend legislation dealing with bottle return fraud and expand the required 10-cent deposit now charged on all carbonated soft drink beverages, beer, and wine coolers to cover non-carbonated beverage containers.
According to MUCC, 97 percent of returnable cans and bottles have been recycled. Only 20 percent of non-returnable containers, like water bottles and containers for other non-carbonated beverages, have been recycled.
"It's a huge disparity," Nyberg said. "We have the mechanism in place, it's simply just an expansion. It will be a huge victory for the environment and the people of Michigan."
For MUCC there are no negative effects in expanding the law. "They are all positive, it's win-win," Nyberg said. "There will be less litter on our beaches and roadsides."
Not everyone agrees with MUCC.
"Who on earth would advocate that we spend 10 times more of the public's money to recycle the same material," said William Lobenherz, president of the Michigan Soft Drink Association. "It's the most costly, ineffective method of recycling known."
Lobenherz said he and his association are always strong advocates of recycling, but he doesn't want to see the public spend more money on an inefficient program.
According to the soft drink association, the current deposit law covering carbonated beverages costs Michigan consumers about $200 million annually in increased beverage costs. The association reports retail prices in the state are a nickle higher per packaged beverage than in surrounding states.
The association estimates an expansion of the deposit law to include non-carbonated beverage containers will cost Michigan consumers an additional $60 million to $80 million per year.
Instead of an expansion to the current law, Lobenherz and his group would like to see a push for participation in existing curbside recycling programs and expanding that to areas without one. The soft drink association suggests the creation of drop-off centers in areas where there is low population density.
The association claims both recycling opportunities they support will be less expensive for the public and will improve recycling rates more dramatically than by expanding the deposit law.
Linda Gobler, president and CEO of the Michigan Grocers Association, said her organization also opposes the bottle deposit expansion as it's being proposed.
"An expansion would have a negative effect on retailers," Gobler said. "For a lot of retailers, space will be an issue. In addition, they will have to deal even more with what can come in those containers. We've seen everything from roaches and mice to condoms."
Another issue for retailers is the cost of expanding their own recycling infrastructure. Gobler said the machines that scan returnable containers can cost up to $20,000.
Gobler and the grocers association support a proposal that would add a one-cent recycling fee to beverage transactions.
"It would generate enough money to be used as start up funds for recycling funds or even the expansion," Gobler said. "As it is now, the expansion will be very costly and there isn't a lot of funding. We need to get the money for the program from somewhere."
MUCC's Nyberg said his organization supports the penny proposal but believes the bottle deposit law expansion is the better option.
In order for MUCC's proposed expansion to take place, three-quarters of state House and Senate members must approve it — a task that may prove difficult. If lawmakers don't approve the expansion, the association may begin a petition drive to place it before Michigan voters.
"As our executive director, Dennis Muchmore, aptly said, 'It's tough to get 75 percent of the Legislature to agree on Mother's day.' It's going to be an uphill climb," Nyberg said.
[signature]
[url "http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Brooke%20Meier&-nothing"]Brooke Meier[/url]
[right][/right]
June 25, 2008 - The Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) wants Michigan lawmakers to expand the state's bottle return law to cover water, sports drink, and other non-carbonated beverage containers.MUCC, the largest non-profit statewide conservation organization in the nation, was the driving force behind the original bottle deposit law adopted by state voters in 1976.
"We've enjoyed 30 years of enormous success," said Dave Nyberg, a resource policy specialist for MUCC.
MUCC announced last week it wants lawmakers to amend legislation dealing with bottle return fraud and expand the required 10-cent deposit now charged on all carbonated soft drink beverages, beer, and wine coolers to cover non-carbonated beverage containers.
According to MUCC, 97 percent of returnable cans and bottles have been recycled. Only 20 percent of non-returnable containers, like water bottles and containers for other non-carbonated beverages, have been recycled.
"It's a huge disparity," Nyberg said. "We have the mechanism in place, it's simply just an expansion. It will be a huge victory for the environment and the people of Michigan."
For MUCC there are no negative effects in expanding the law. "They are all positive, it's win-win," Nyberg said. "There will be less litter on our beaches and roadsides."
Not everyone agrees with MUCC.
"Who on earth would advocate that we spend 10 times more of the public's money to recycle the same material," said William Lobenherz, president of the Michigan Soft Drink Association. "It's the most costly, ineffective method of recycling known."
Lobenherz said he and his association are always strong advocates of recycling, but he doesn't want to see the public spend more money on an inefficient program.
According to the soft drink association, the current deposit law covering carbonated beverages costs Michigan consumers about $200 million annually in increased beverage costs. The association reports retail prices in the state are a nickle higher per packaged beverage than in surrounding states.
The association estimates an expansion of the deposit law to include non-carbonated beverage containers will cost Michigan consumers an additional $60 million to $80 million per year.
Instead of an expansion to the current law, Lobenherz and his group would like to see a push for participation in existing curbside recycling programs and expanding that to areas without one. The soft drink association suggests the creation of drop-off centers in areas where there is low population density.
The association claims both recycling opportunities they support will be less expensive for the public and will improve recycling rates more dramatically than by expanding the deposit law.
Linda Gobler, president and CEO of the Michigan Grocers Association, said her organization also opposes the bottle deposit expansion as it's being proposed.
"An expansion would have a negative effect on retailers," Gobler said. "For a lot of retailers, space will be an issue. In addition, they will have to deal even more with what can come in those containers. We've seen everything from roaches and mice to condoms."
Another issue for retailers is the cost of expanding their own recycling infrastructure. Gobler said the machines that scan returnable containers can cost up to $20,000.
Gobler and the grocers association support a proposal that would add a one-cent recycling fee to beverage transactions.
"It would generate enough money to be used as start up funds for recycling funds or even the expansion," Gobler said. "As it is now, the expansion will be very costly and there isn't a lot of funding. We need to get the money for the program from somewhere."
MUCC's Nyberg said his organization supports the penny proposal but believes the bottle deposit law expansion is the better option.
In order for MUCC's proposed expansion to take place, three-quarters of state House and Senate members must approve it — a task that may prove difficult. If lawmakers don't approve the expansion, the association may begin a petition drive to place it before Michigan voters.
"As our executive director, Dennis Muchmore, aptly said, 'It's tough to get 75 percent of the Legislature to agree on Mother's day.' It's going to be an uphill climb," Nyberg said.
[signature]
![[Image: yell.gif]](http://www.bigfishtackle.com/images/gforum/yell.gif)
![[Image: surprised.gif]](http://www.bigfishtackle.com/images/gforum/surprised.gif)