[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Re: E-M:/ Bottle-return debate
In a 2002 report Maine estimated its bottle return rate at 95-98% (see http://www.state.me.us/spo/recycle/bottlebill/ ). In a 2005 MDEQ report Michigan's bottle return rate was estimated at 97% (see <x-tad-bigger>Recommendations for Improving and Expanding Recycling in Michigan at http://michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3312_4123-77046--,00.html ).
On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:19 PM, Claire Maitre wrote:
In Maine, they have extended their bottle return to include juice, teas, etc. AND they have drive up redemption centers where you don't even have to get out of your car if you don't want to. They'll count up your total and give you the cash. Redemption centers accept every container included in the returnable law. Mainers only pay half of what we do for deposits, five cents per container.
Brad, if you are still tuning in to this thread, I wonder if you could find out how successful Maine's program has been compared to Michigan's. It certainly seems more convenient for all beverage sellers there that they don't have to deal with dirty returnables (which they could do here if they didn't sell the crazy things). It's very convenient for citizens to comply. I wonder, if our success rate is is 90%, what is their percentage of returns?
I do believe that we should hold manufacturers responsible for their choice to create single use plastic everything, including beverage containers. They should have to deal with the problem they've created.
People who don't rinse out their containers are acting very inconsiderate. They deserve whatever roach problem they are inviting in to their homes/garages.
Thanks for the cogent analysis, Brad.
On Aug 23, 2006, at 8:37 PM, William Tobler wrote:
<x-tad-smaller>I do not like taxing one thing to subsidize another.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>There are too many unintended and undesirable side effects.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>If a store is not willing to accept returnable bottles, then this store should not be allowed to sell products in returnable bottles. KISS principle.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-bigger>----- Original Message -----</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Sent:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:04 PM</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Subject:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> Re: E-M:/ Bottle-return debate</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-smaller>Sorry about the misconception. I wasn't attempting to say that the current system is a "legitimate problem", which, despite a variety of shortcomings, IS successful. Rather, I was suggesting that implementing a means to improve upon the state's poor recycling system and resource management practices is a legitimate problem. Expecting modifications to the bottle bill to fix all of those problems is certainly asking too much and "best practices" improvements to the system are not likely forthcoming. Hence the "penny plan" is a reasonable, next best alternative approach to address issues of recycling and litter simultaneously.
Brad van Guilder, Ph. D.
117 North Division Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1580
(734) 663-2400 ext 114
(734) 663-2414 FAX
(313) 205-6386 CELL Not available while driving!
UAW Region 1A Toxic Waste Squad