Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Supremes shoot down property tax exemption for hospital
Next Post: Helmets for kids goes down in flames - Thomson will be sold regardless
Posted in:
* The setup…
When he was lieutenant governor, Gov. Pat Quinn supported a beverage container deposit bill that would have imposed a 5-cent deposit on wine, alcoholic liquor and beer containers, along with bottles and cans holding soft drinks, tea, coffee, juice and water.
His argument was that such containers constitute 40 percent or more of roadside trash, largely because people drink bottled and canned beverages while away from home and are careless with their disposal.
With 8 billion beverage containers sold in Illinois in 2002, according to Quinn, a bottle bill could keep a lot more of them from winding up as environmental eyesores. He noted that states with such bills report a reduction of nearly three-fourths of beverage container litter. […]
Bottle bills are not without their critics. The Illinois Retail Merchants Association and other groups believe such laws are a burden to businesses and consumers, and they don’t like the fact that people would be returning dirty bottles and cans to grocery and convenience stores, which could introduce bugs and contamination and make it harder to pass health department inspections.
* The Question: Should the state pass a bill requiring a 5-cent deposit on bottles and cans? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:34 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Supremes shoot down property tax exemption for hospital
Next Post: Helmets for kids goes down in flames - Thomson will be sold regardless
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes!!!!
Our family spends quite a bit of time in Michigan which has a bottle bill. The road sides are much cleaner than here in Illinois. It’s not much of a hassle at all to collect your empties and bring them back to the grocery store for credit IMHO.
Comment by Stones Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:41 am
If it can be constructed into a plan that helps reduce the deficit, its worth a try.
Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:42 am
Yes. Quinn is correct. The trash costs the state money in clean-up costs and equipment maintenance. It’s an externality to the polluter (and the manufacturer); this puts the cost back on the people who create the problem. If this works in other states, it’s worth a go here.
Back in the day, I worked in a grocery store and we collected bottles that the soda companies collected, washed, and refilled. Hygiene was not a serious issue.
Returnable bottles was the way the system worked 30 years ago.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:43 am
Yes.
You can’t find a single aluminum can anywhere in my urban neighborhood. Alleys are clear of them, streets are clear of them. Even trash cans and dumpsters are clear of them.
That’s because there is a market created by some scrap metal companies who pay for the cans. Not many residents take the time to take them themselves to those places (maybe they would if it was as easy as a grocery store), but there are people who scour everywhere for this “litter” and collect a nice sum from it.
Comment by ok Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:43 am
Sure, why not. And I love IRMA’s response: “eww, the bottles and cans are dirty.” Some burden.
Why he’s at it, how about a deposit on those cheap plastic grocery bags that can’t be recycled? The problem with those bags ending up as litter was so bad in Ireland that they were banned entirely. There were so many bags caught up in trees that the locals called them the National Flag of Ireland.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:47 am
No. Yet another feel good idea that costs ’someone else’ money. It puts the burden on private industry i.e. stores to do the work.
I bet if you analyze the places where there is a deposit, the system does not pay for itself. Since apparently no one cleans up the messes now, there will be no savings on the State end either.
When will people learn that governmental regulation is a cost which in most cases is not a benefit.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:53 am
Yes, This is a revenue source that has no downside. A $.05 deposit could be placed on beverage containers with 3-4 cents going back to the State and the other 1-2 cents going to the recycling center where they are returned. This cuts down on the trash dumped along roads, in parks, etc. It cuts down on what goes to landfills. People who toss glass bottles out of windows would think twice if they could get money back on them. It creates jobs at recycling centers. Plastic is a HUGE problem in the environment. There was a gentleman, forgot his name, who was on Letterman the other night who discovered a floating mass of plastic the size of Texas and the full depth of the water column out in the Pacific ocean. This plastic debris is affecting the oxygen/CO2 exchange that normally goes on in the oceans. This plastic debris now makes up part of the sand on the beaches of islands in the Pacific Ocean. We need to get control of our plastic refuse and this would be a start.
Comment by irish Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:54 am
Absolutely.
This bill is environmentally friendly and no more of a “burden” than mandatory municipal recycling programs.
Michigan is the model.
The only fear I have is that Quinn would issue a 5 cent deposit and the state would keep 1 cent as an administration fee.
Comment by Jake from Elwood Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:55 am
I grew up in MI, and always enjoyed gathering bottles and cans together to go try and make some change as a kid to buy candy or whatever. It keeps things cleaner, doesn’t impose too much of a cost (none if you return it), and saves money on cleanup.
As far as the “opposition” goes, I have never heard of bottle return services at a grocery store making it harder to pass inspections, or causing problems with cleanliness.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:56 am
YES! It will provide incentive for those who walk the roads looking for aluminum cans a reason to pick up the plastic bottles. Michigan has an automated machine that simply reads the bar code…it is kind of a pain to recycle but anything worthwhile comes at a price. I say this should have been done LONG AGO…
Comment by Vote Quimby! Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:57 am
How many things does the government really need to be involved in? How about a newspaper tax, and you have to return it to where you bought it or have it picked up by the paperboy so the government knows it was disposed of properly. How about a diaper deposit…? And a deficit reducer? $.05? It is just one more program to get some family member a job. And thh program will fail and suck money out of the system. An utterly ridiculous proposal.
How about an idea that doesn’t impose your will on the people, Mr Quinn?
Comment by Heartless Libertarian Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:57 am
Sorry, I meant 3-4 cents going to the consumer.
Comment by irish Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 10:59 am
I could see where you could confuse the government with the consumer….
Comment by Heartless Libertarian Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 11:00 am
On a side note when Blago was a State Rep he had the same bill….
Comment by Just Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 11:00 am
Yes! Thsi worjked great in MI where I once lived. it also had interesting social benfits as well. lot of fundraisers where they just asked people to send their returnables; scouts and other groups picking up litter were also able to earn a little support moey etc for their tasks and whatnot.
Also, back when we had glass soda bottles in IL I recall handling the glass bottle returns at our grocery store. it was no problem at all for the store.
I would also point out I am a closet oberweiss milk fan. Their milk comes in glass bottles, and they try and get people to voluntarily return them to the stores so they can be reused. So far the stores are not complaining aout the cost of doing this for free or complaining about the filth all those dirty oberwiess bottles create. Put in a .5 deposit, let the store keep a poertionfor processing like we do with the sales tax and its a win win.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 11:15 am
Yes, definitly. I also agree with the grocery bag idea. Although I like the idea of banning them altogether, such as San Francisco has done, maybe if they were worth a nickel apiece more people would return them. While your talking about it, why not bring back glass bottles and re-use? I’ll bet that would create some much-needed jobs!
Comment by Dead Head Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 11:23 am
Yes - Agree with prior posts that for those too lazy to return their empties, the organizations, schools, churches, scouts. etc. can collect for fund raisers.
Comment by Mr. Ethics Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 11:40 am
Let’s be honest:
The easiest and safest way to recycle is to abandon aluminum and plastic and return to glass containers. Plastic is based on petroleum, and it releases very toxic gas when melted and recycled. Aluminum particles in pop cans mix with the soda. These particles are ingested, accumulate in the brain, and cause Alzheimers. Glass is the safe and the only environmentally friendly option.
The Illinois Retail Merchants Association *knows* that if IL were to return to the kind of bottle system we had in the 1970s, then consumers would buy fewer soft drinks. The returnable bottles are much heavier than aluminum cans and plastic bottles, so people would therefore buy fewer drinks at the grocery store.
Comment by Downstate Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 11:44 am
It works in Hawaii. You don’t bring the bottles back to the grocery store, the state has collection locations where bags of bottles and cans are weighed.
People walk around all day looking for bottles and cans - money for them, better environment, more state revenue.
Comment by Shamrock Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 11:48 am
YES!!!!
I visited Oregon last summer and was very impressed by how clean the roadsides were. Oregon does have a container law. But, the citizens of Oregon also have a very strong ethic against trashing.
I walk country roads in central IL for exercise. I am really discouraged by the trash (mostly aluminum beer cans) that I see. You might think that this is thrown out by kids cruising the countryside. But, I have witnessed a local farmer throwing beer cans out his truck window along my road. You know, he is the kind of upstanding citizen with a white picket fence around his show place property and who would just flip if I drove by and trashed his property.
OK. I am on a tirade here, but this is a long time pet peeve. When I was a college student in the early 70s, we traveled to Springfield to lobby for a bottle bill. I have no illusions that the beverage industry lobby will continue to kill any bottle bill legislation in spring patch. Sad. It reflects badly on us as environmental stewards. But, with some exceptions, our legislators ain’t exactly in that frame of mind. Many are still, as in the 70s, a bunch of right wing reactionaries in the pockets of the lobbies.
Comment by vole Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 11:55 am
===have witnessed a local farmer throwing beer cans out his truck window along my road. ===
When I was a young kid growing up in the Iroquois County countryside, we had a neighbor who did that all the time.
One day, my dad rounded up his troops (five sons, although there were probably only three of us on this detail) and had us walk up and down the ditches on both sides of our country mile road and pick up the cans. We filled an ungodly number of bags. That guy was not only a drunk, he was a dirty bird.
Anyway, I can relate.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:00 pm
No-my local community gets tons of money from the cubside recycling effort now. Who is going to reimburse them once people stop recycling.
Comment by Tom Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:01 pm
Well, I guess I’m stumped. I’m one of the many people who throw away my trash and recycle most of what can. I pay for the convenience of curbside recycling through municipal taxes. If I’m getting this right… I would be paying a deposit to the store but I wouldn’t get the deposited cash back unless I brought my cans/bottles back to the store rather than use the recycling service I’m taxed for. So now I’m “taxed” at the store, while still”taxed” for recycling services. I’m trying to get my hands around this. Would Crown (recycling pickup) make .5 cents a bottle? Would they charge municipalities less for the service if they’re making cash from resident’s deposits? Would “enterprising” people sort through my recycling can to pull out the bottles and cans presumably reducing but not eliminating the need for recycling pick up? Maybe the MI people can straighten this out for me, presuming MI has both a mandatory deposit system and residential recycling services.
It sounds good at a high level, as a beautification incentive. But it also seems like a required 5 cent donation ($.60 per twelve pack) for those already paying for curbside service.
Comment by Keep Smiling Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:02 pm
Absolutely. Aside from the environmental impact of litter, recycling aluminum is a great way to cut down on energy usage. Smelting aluminum is a terribly inefficient process that uses unbelievable amounts of electricity. Recycling uses an insignificant fraction of that energy.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:03 pm
Yes! And invest the revenue in community services for people with disabilities and mental illness!
Comment by I know nothing Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:08 pm
This would be a very good idea that would dramatically increase the abysmal rate of container recycling, particularly plastic ones. It would put a burden on recycling certers who make much of their profit (if there is any!) from the beverage containers that are donated or sold to them. Some urban areas see the homeless collect quite a few from those consumers who don’t want to take back a few containers or from the ones discarded on the road. Michigan has automatic reverse-vending machines that count your returns and give you a voucher. Some states have fought with their retailers on who gets to keep the unreclaimed deposits which can amount to millions after just a couple of years. The retailers just don’t want to mess with this though; they’re just glad to sell the junk and let someone else handle the residue.
Comment by pyramid schemer Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:10 pm
The last survey I saw showed a pretty good recycling rate in my area. So good in fact that there is a glut of recyclable materials on the marketplace and it is cheaper to bury much of the materials than to recycle them.
Many people who have failed econ 101 seem to be responding today.
When you collect a deposit at purchase, you refund the same money at turn in. Other than the folks who do not return the product containers the financial exchange is a cash wash. The added efforts of storing the containers and cleaning them is born by the purchaser, There are additional costs that the seller has to absorb including handling and more trucks running around burning fossil fuels to collect and take the stuff away for recycling.
Most communities already have methods in place to collect and recycle empty containers, so in essence we are developing a parallel system to do what already is being done, but at additional cost. The existing systems already work for all except for the pigs who throw stuff out the window!
So the lemmings are racing toward the cliff to tax the responsible for the actions of the irresponsible.
No wonder the State is in such a fiscal mess.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:25 pm
Yes but they need to designate recycling centers for the drop off’s
Comment by Ahoy Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:33 pm
Yes. Bottle bills get far more containers out of landfills and back into industrial production (not only as new bottles, but as road materials and other uses for plastic, glass, and aluminum). Deposit laws are among the great state-level successes of environmental policy over the past 40 years, and Illinois would benefit from following the lead of Michigan, Oregon, and the many other states that benefit from such policies.
Plus, in college towns, the amusement factor of going to the store on Sundays and watching students monopolize the reverse-vending machines for hours on end as they feed container after container whilst hung over cannot be overestimated.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:36 pm
@- Downstate - Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 11:44 am: -
” Aluminum particles in pop cans mix with the soda. These particles are ingested, accumulate in the brain, and cause Alzheimers”.
Wow, I was with you all the way until that statement. How many scientific studies will it take to prove that aluminum DOES NOT CAUSE Alzheimers disease? It is simply not true. Please provide us with a proper, peer reviewed, article describing a properly conducted study which proves aluminum causes dementia of any type. Please do not use the tired “they found aluminum in the brain at autopsy”. While the metal was found it has not been shown to be a causal factor - more likely a result of the derangement.
Since aluminum is more easily re-cycled than plastic it makes sense to do so. Reusing aluminum takes far less energy than producing the material from bauxite. Glass, too, is comparably easier to re-cycle. If plastic grocery bags are returned to the store, it can be recycled into playground equipment.
While I agree with the recycle stuff please leave out the conspiracy theory stuff about aluminum. Having had a relative die from dementia and spending much time reviewing the information available regarding the causes and treatments I had come upon this info. Now discredited by authoritative studies.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:47 pm
Absolutely, I went to college close to Iowa. Iowa had cleaner roads, and people collecting cans and bottles for the deposit, just like people collect cans by “the Cell” around game time, for the extra cash. Oberweis has something like $1.50 to $1.75 deposit depending on the store, and milk would go rancid before a soda or water bottles and I have not heard of any complaints about milk bottles getting rank or reeking.
Comment by Third Generation Chicago Native Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:49 pm
Sorry, didn’t address the question. While I generally don’t like gov’t making us do stuff, this is something that is simple enough. Give people an incentive to recycle, whether it is the purchaser or the scavenger. I would like to see some study info re how well it has worked in Mich. If it is not helping, I say no to the deposit scheme.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:50 pm
I also lived in Michigan for a long time. My kids regularly made $15-$20 a week just picking up junk cans and bottles. System worked very well. Lots of groups there made significant money with fund raisers based on bans and bottles.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:50 pm
Why do this?
If you wish to do this because it will reduce litter and that is the most important thing in the world to you - then do it. You won’t mind the consequences within the market because you prioritized litter reduction as your number one priority.
If you wish to do this to raise revenue, then perhaps we should instead consider a better alternative, a litter tax. This is what many other states have been using for years with success. Sreading the costs among all the manufacturers and distributors is better than focusing negatively with these taxes on beverage containers.
The costs involved in producing and distributing a beverage increases, which raises the cost of these beverages on the market. There is the cost of warehousing the recycled containers, and the cost of sorting out the containers because not all drink containers are included in this scheme. All stores selling recycled beverages have to set aside valuable space which has to go through health inspections, maintenance and cleaning. Corner stores can just put recycled products in an aluminum shed until pick up.
There is the added costs of picking up the recycled containers. States with bottle bills have seen an increase in their per ton recycling costs after these bills are enacted, while also seeing a decrease in the tonage of other forms of litter. This is a challenges since the overhead costs of collecting litter at other sites doesn’t decrease proportionally to the reduction in recycled container litter.
Now - onto the consumer side of it. Bottle law states have the extra costs of dealing with out of state beverage containers. These containers did not pay the deposit, yet cost the same within the system as a container that paid the deposit. Depending on the size of the state, some states end up handling 23% of these out of state non-deposit-paid beverage containers. In larger state, this is less. This adds to the costs.
In Germany, where I lived, the need for additional warehouse space within the country has been exceeding what the Germans have allocated and paid for to handle recycled trash. As a result, for over two decades, Germany has been buying warehouse space in neighboring countries to store it’s recycled trash. Recycling trash takes longer than consuming the product, so inevitably every government that has established some kind of mandatory recycling program has discovered that recycled trash piles up at a much faster rate than normal trash. Too fast to keep up, as a matter of fact.
When you shop in Germany, you have to keep all your glass containers, sort them by color, paid deposits on them, clean them out when they are emptied, store them in your house until your next visit to the store, load the containers up in your car on onto your bicycle, carry them all to the store, unload them into shopping carts, wheel them into the deposit line, unload the carts, process the containers through the deposit computers, and then buy new product.
As you can imagine, there are now millions of Germans who are buying products specifically for the purpose of throwing them away and avoiding the deposit costs and the incredible hassle of dealing with empty containers.
So what we have witnessed over the past thirty years is the fact that litter is immediately reduced, then after a while, reappears in a different form. We see consumer costs increase, manufacturing costs increase, store costs increase, warehousing costs increase, recycling costs increase, and consumer consuming less of the brands that follow the recycling laws to the benefit of the brands that do not.
Lets not just jump into this because it sounds so easy. It isn’t. Also, let’s stop demonizing the people who produce, distribute and sell us the products we wish to tack new costs onto. There are real reasons behind their methods. They do what they do because they are successful.
If you want Illinois to grow jobs, this is not how you do it.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 12:57 pm
Vanilla Man: Please go back to the appropriate century to which you belong…
Are you for real?
The cost for recycling the materials will be put into the cost of the product you dolt, just as computer manufacturers are doing currently doing to facilitate recycling and reuse of components…I’d rather have the homeless collecting bottles and cans (as they do in NY state) a profitable, empowering endeavor, rather than going out to lunch and having the homeless beg for money on every streetcorner in the Loop…please do not write about things you know little to nothing about…this ” oh I am so scared of the government getting into my business” rant is way old…
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:06 pm
VM, I don’t get the logic of “it takes more time to recylce a container than it takes to consume the prodect”. The consumption is only one facet of the product stream. It takes some time to mine the material (or drill and pump), refine and fabricate. It takes less time and energy to recylce aluminum than it takes to locate, mine and refine. I agree w/plasti bottles and seek to limit my consumption of that. Glass and aluminum make more sense. I won’t buy bottled water for just that reason. What a horrific waste of our petroleum. All going into landfills that are increasing in cost. That cost is being paid by, who else, consumers. Pay now, pay later.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:09 pm
LL,
Really, now, if you want to call people names please lurk around the brainless blogs. Boring.
And, yes, let’s use the tired old rant about the gov’t getting into our business. If we changed out mind you would call us wishy washy. Got a useless argument for everything is getting old, too.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:11 pm
Yes, making packaging a part of the product stream instead of a dead end should encourage reduction in the amount of unnecessary packaging and re-usable packaging. Recycle and Reuse. And I agree w/ the fee for plastic bags…will help one remember to bring the bag. Kids of the generation before Rich walked the ditches to collect pop bottles to return for pocket money–stores had no trouble managing there return to the bottling companies. But including recycling centers is a good idea. Further, this does not have to have a negative impact on city recycling programs if it is all coordinated together.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:19 pm
DD: If you changed your mind, it would be a miracle, besides being a step in the right direction…
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:19 pm
DD: If you want to insult me, please put it in the correct post…:)
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:21 pm
As a former Michigander, I loved earning money on my nightly strolls (exercise and get paid at the same time!) It’s worked for them for what, 30+ years now, you’d think if it were such a horrible idea, then they would have dropped it by now.
But if memory serves, when this idea has come up in the past, the Metro East area was one of the most vocal opponents (because they make (or made?) containers there.) Is there a risk to that industry?
Comment by What planet is he from again? Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:28 pm
Yes, because its a way to provide a financial incentive for a behavior that will benefit the entire society, the environment, etc. It’s not a tax, it’s a deposit.
I went to college in a community with a deposit law. There was never a spare empty beer or pop can left around. If the college kids didn’t grab them the local homeless / can collectors would. It’s a policy that has many benefits, most of all cleaner streets and more efficient recycling operations. Most people throw their cans and bottles out now, many many business sell glass bottled beverages but don’t offer a place to recycle them.
I encourage Quinn to push it again.
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:30 pm
LL,
?
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:36 pm
10 cents is better incentive. One problem in Michigan is that the small retailers don’t have the space to collect all the returnables.
Comment by old pol Mike Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:37 pm
Where did the idea that this was going to be a revenue source come up? That doesn’t appear to have anything to do with PQ’s proposal.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:38 pm
It’s not a tax, it’s a deposit.
Not really. It ends up being treated as another government cost within the production cycle, and the money collected doesn’t pay for the costs because it is specific to only certain brands, products and packages. It tilts the market away from efficiency, causing subsequent inequities that rob it from being a deposit.
It doesn’t even out in the end. In states that have enacted it, the deposits collected are never enough to handle the additional costs within the systems. So, while it won’t be called a tax, it works similarly within the market.
What’s really downright funny is the fact that those who claim it will help efficiency doesn’t see how incredibly inefficient it really is!
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:40 pm
Loop Lady,
If I have given you any appearance of being a dolt, or of having dolt-like behaviors, of wearing anything dolt-ish in style, color or fit, then I am, madam, a dolt.
However my posting was not based on dolt thinking, but on real world experiences regarding recycling.
We cannot just clap our gloved hands and demand a fundamental market cost increase without recognizing the consequences of our action. While I recognize that items with deposits upon them decrease in appearing in litter, it doesn’t stop litter, it doesn’t pay for itself, it isn’t a win-win for consumers, and only increases your costs, while generating inequalities within the market.
Please, now that you have come down off your porch and soiled your white shoes arguing with the field hands, I suggest you return to fanning yourself as I ask the Colonel to fetch you a julep.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:49 pm
The State revenues generated will come from folks that will be sorting through the recyclables…this is a job creation vehicle and these emplyed will pay taxes on their earnings…I would think this green business could provide hundreds of jobs across the state…
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:50 pm
Real world experiences of how many years (decades) ago?
Silly man, I don’t wear white shoes until after Memorial Day, and Juleps are for Derby day only…I did have a green beer or two yesterday…
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 1:56 pm
Environmental consciousness? Uh oh, look out, this is one of those “Progressive” ideas born from the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, the American Lenin, according to Glenn Beck.
Absolutely do it. It’s so easy. If you’re too lazy to deal with it, lose the nickel.
There’s no constitutional right to being a slob.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 2:11 pm
Real world experiences of how many years (decades) ago?
2004 was my last visit to my old alma mater.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 2:49 pm
I went to school in Iowa. It works just fine there. I do understand the concerns of IRMA. I think Vman’s point about space is a bigger issue though. So long as retailers aren’t mandated to take deposits back (make an incentive for places to voluntarily take back deposits), I’m pretty much for it.
One other issue to consider, there would probably be a lot of hassle at the outset of this program. Think of all the glass and cans on the side of the road that did not get a deposit paid on them. People would pick those up thinking they are going to get 5 cents for them.
Comment by Prognosis Negative Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:02 pm
- People would pick those up thinking they are going to get 5 cents for them. -
Heh, free cleanup anyway.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:05 pm
They should pass a bill on this issue except they should allow private recyclers to handle the bottles and cans instead of conveience stores and the like.
Comment by KiR Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:10 pm
Absolutely! I lived and worked in Iowa thirty years ago–they pioneered the bottle deposit bill. College and university kids used it as an opportunity to raise cash for good causes. I was able to fund a week-long service trip for 20 students from Loras College to Appalachian Eastern Kentucky by collecting and returning cans and bottles on campus.
Comment by emerson in peoria Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:16 pm
In Illinois, we did this when I was a kid. We had to keep the bottles, wash them out, and return them. I remember they were very sticky and messy. They also attracted bugs in the garage. It’s ok. Don’t count the water I use to wash them out, and personally, I will just spray more pesticides to avoid the bugs issues. Then I will make an extra trip to the store in my gas-guzzling SUV to return them. I will make special trips in my gas-guzzling SUV to buy pop when I am out of state and return them here so I can make some profit on the deal.
Comment by yikes Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:20 pm
Everyone who touts the program talks about how well it works from one end. That of the collector and the reqards reaped. How about some info as to how well the program works from the other end. Does Michigan have data on how much stuff goes into the stream vs how much is collected? Is there info available as to how much stuff actually is re-cycled (think blue bag program in Chicago) and what the ultimate costs of the program are? Talking about how wonderful it is to make money collecting the stuff and how clean the roads are is only half the story.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:23 pm
On second thought, I’m feeling very nostalgic about glass bottles. Pop tastes better out of a bottle. If they would go back to glass, I’m in. Glass did involve a few more cuts from broken bottles and was sort of dangerous at the ball park in the summer but people found all sorts of great ways to remove the cap (including a few chipped teeth). You could always knock the end of the bottle while someone was drinking out of it and either dump pop all over them, chip their tooth (if they didn’t tuck in their top lip) or make them gag. Kids today miss out on all that.
Comment by yikes Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:26 pm
Hey we can collect all of these 5 cent bottles and cans then drive to Michigan for a 10 cent refund! Just think of all the money we’ll make!
Comment by Cosmo Kramer Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:27 pm
yikes - I really tire of this line of fake logic that all of the anti-environmental folks come up with any time an environmental initiative is brought up. Do what you want, don’t participate if you don’t want to. No one is forcing you. But guess what, recycling is good for the environment, there is no debate on this, its proven. So stop trying to sound intelligent about it, because you really just sound like every other uninformed moron out there.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:28 pm
VM got his Econ 101 textbook out for this post. I’ll try to go from memory.
Many of the environmental costs that taxpayers are responsible for are externalized by the producer. Air pollution, the dead zone in the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, significant costs to waste water treatment plants and surface water bodies, etc. They should pay for them but they don’t (completel at least).
The $0.05 fee is middle ground–the lazy consumer pays, the producer gets to use more recycled materials rather than virgin (more polluting) materials, and the state gets a revenue boost. Win win!
Comment by Lefty Lefty Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:31 pm
The state all not net any new money out of this deal. It is a deposit Not atax after all
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 3:49 pm
Oberweiss Dairy has deposit bottles for its milk. No one has claimed that they have gotten sick because of the return of the bottles. I used to sort the bottles retured to the grocery store I worked at, and I never got sick either.
Now is the time to do it!
Comment by Tom Joad Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 4:15 pm
And 5 cents is going to incentivise your farmer who threw the beer can out the window not to do it again?? Better to fine him (assume it’s a him) for throwing any piece of rubbish out. There are countries that give their community that ability to report litterers from motor vehicles (not only beverage containers, but cigarettes and other items) and they they get issued with equivalent of a $100US fine (Australia is one such country). A couple of those sort of fines would soon stop the litters.
Comment by There's no free lunch Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 4:30 pm
I work for IDOT and for years the local work camp picked up the trash on the roadside. Now with no money for fuel or vans the roads in Southern Illinois look like West Va. It’s been three years since the crews have picked up the trash. I think a deposit would be a great idea! My wife contacted our local rep and the gov office to complain and neither bothered to call or email back. I guess they are too busy to sweat the small stuff.
Comment by NIEVA Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 4:51 pm
It’s a lovely idea but the hounds of Chicago’s Dumpster Task Force will just tee off on all the local bars who have to stack and rack bottles waiting for a recycling or beer company to come pick them up.
They are already merciless about dumpster tickets and I’m cynical enough to bet that we’ll get an inspector slapping us with a ticket for “storing used food or beverage containers on premises” and a second ticket for “Failure to recycle deposit bottles”.
Comment by Chicago Bars Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 4:59 pm
Basically if you buy an oberweis milk jug that’s glass you’re charge with a deposit. If you bring it back to a customer service desk like at Dominick’s then you would get back that deposit. These days it would be a $1.50. Could this work for bottles of alcoholic beverages.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 6:04 pm
I seem to remember as a kid going to the grocery store with my mom and returning glass bottles. Didn’t Illinois used to do this??
Comment by RJW Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 6:13 pm
No. Mr. Quinn, get your government out of my life and your hand off my wallet. ‘Freedom’ means freedom from your interference.
Comment by Park Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 8:09 pm
Park, you make it sound like Lexington and Concord. Very stirring. It’s still just a nickel on your Red, White and Blue can. And you get the nickel back when you return it.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 8:43 pm
Guess freedom also means build your own roads, get your fire equipment, create your own education, keep your own jails, build all your own buildings, and don’t get sick if your job goes away. Think I hear the orchestra building as the flag raises.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 9:01 pm
–When will people learn that governmental regulation is a cost which in most cases is not a benefit.–
Like building codes, electrical codes, stop signs, railroad crossings, drinking and driving laws, fire codes, drinking water standards, waste disposal regs., professional licensing, food purity standards, engineering standards, truth in lending laws, etc., all done for kicks, no benefits at all.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 9:20 pm
My family roots are Iowa, and they’ve had it there for as long as I can remember, back 30 years ago when a nickel actually still just about meant something. The big old 16 ounce glass Pepsi and Coke bottles that were available in eight-packs were actually ten cents each for deposit. Personally I think it’s a great idea. It ensures a very high recycling rate for aluminum, which is way cheaper to recycle than to refine fresh from bauxite; and it also ensures a very high recycling rate for plastic which is a disaster in landfills or floating in the ocean.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 9:24 pm