Having helped defeat the expansion of the Massachusetts bottle law, opponents have set their sights on gutting the law by eliminating the nickel deposit. Their effort should land where it belongs: in the trash.
The Legislature’s Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee recently pushed along a proposal that would drop the 5-cent deposit on bottles and cans of carbonated beverages, like soda and beer, and offer in its place a penny-per-container fee paid by beverage distributors and wholesalers for three years.
Massachusetts residents should see that this plan won’t improve the landscape, regardless what proponents argue in calling for an end to the 33-year-old deposit law.
The bill’s proponents say an estimated $114 million would go toward modernizing recycling efforts across the state with the goal of establishing “single-stream” recycling, where people don’t have to sort their bottles and cans.
Clearly it’s an appeal to shoppers who don’t like taking soda bottles or beer cans to a redemption center. Actually, such a convenience is already in place for those people who don’t care about getting a nickel back; they can simply mix these containers in with the rest of their recycling, particularly in communities where curbside recycling already exists.
This may be a factor in state figures concerning redemption. Last, year, the statewide redemption rate for containers with deposits was 59 percent. This is a drop from the rate four years before, when it was nearly 68 percent.
While some people may be willing to forgo the nickel, that doesn’t mean eliminating the 5-cent deposit is a great idea — or won’t have an negative impact.
Massachusetts would likely see an increase in roadside litter, risking a return to the mess before the bottle bill was instituted. People who are motivated by deposit refunds will be less willing to dispose of their beverage containers properly since that effort will bring no monetary reward. Also, there won’t be as many people picking up the improperly discarded containers, whether from public trash cans or along roads because there wouldn’t be a chance to redeem them for cash. It would eliminate can and bottle drives that local community groups use as fundraisers.
We agree with environmental groups who say the supposed advantages of change heavily favor the food and beverage industries that now have to process returns and deal with state paperwork. Those industries have long complained about the law and spent heavily to defeat the 2014 ballot initiative that sought to include more, not fewer, containers under the deposit umbrella.
Let’s not fall for this bait and switch. Keeping Massachusetts clean requires keeping its 5-cent deposit in place.