Mass. needs a more flexible, less-bottled-up recycling law
Christopher Flynn
Massachusetts is used to being on the cutting edge. In politics and social change or in technology and innovation, our commonwealth is usually leading the way, embracing good ideas before other states have even heard of them. This “early adopter” mentality is part of why Massachusetts is such a great place to live, work and raise a family. You could say that living here is like being the first kid in class to own an iPod.
In cities and towns around the commonwealth, when it comes to the most efficient means of recycling, 90 percent of people have access to curbside recycling programs or drop-off centers. That's the cutting edge, and it's where the attention should be focused to increase the overall rate of recycling statewide.
Unfortunately, the misguided push to expand the bottle bill in Massachusetts is assigning priority to the wrong initiative. It's like trading your iPod for a CD changer. Or an eight-track player. The bottle bill is as old as those technologies and just about as relevant.
The law, which was passed in 1982, is cumbersome for consumers and taxing on small businesses, and it removes some of the most valuable commodities from the recycling waste stream. It may have been cutting-edge environmental policy 32 years ago, when you wouldn't have stepped foot in the Charles River and leaded gasoline was still readily available. But expanding the Bottle Bill today would be a giant step backward.
Massachusetts needs forward progress on recycling to stay at the cutting edge and make the process easier and more efficient for everyone. Communities such as Worcester are helping to lead the way, through single-stream curbside recycling programs, which eliminate the need for residents to sort plastic, aluminum and glass. Now the commonwealth as a whole needs to follow the city's lead.
New legislation sponsored by Rep. John Binienda and Sen. Michael Moore would do away with the Bottle Bill and replace it with expanded, single-stream curbside recycling in every city and town. The 5-cent deposit on every container — in effect, a tax on consumers — would be eliminated. Instead, distributors would provide transitional support in the form of a 1-cent fee to fund the program's recycling initiatives.
If that sounds easier on consumers and businesses to you, that's because it is. But just as important, this new system would also increase participation rates by simplifying and expanding access to recycling. Many people would love to recycle more, but don't have the time to collect 500 bottles and get to a redemption center (which may or may not be located in their communities). A curbside system would make recycling as easy as a walk to the end of the driveway. Meanwhile, beverage manufacturers, which pay Massachusetts taxes and employ many Bay State residents, would see their per-container tax reduced by 80 percent, which is good for them and good for their customers. Other states, such as Delaware, have foregone their deposit systems in favor of this new system to great success, and Vermont is seriously considering it.
Although we're used to waiting on other states to catch up to us, the time has come for Massachusetts to join Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey and others in adopting this more modern, flexible, and effective recycling policy. The Binienda-Moore legislation would do just that.
Central Massachusetts residents and businesses — as well as others statewide — should call their legislators and urge them to support it.
Christopher Flynn is president of the Massachusetts Food Association, a non-profit trade association for supermarkets and grocers.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments