07-01-2003, 05:19 AM
Expanded deposit law doubtful
[url "http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Michael%20Hoskins&-nothing"][#0000ff]by Michael Hoskins[/#0000ff][/url] [#0000ff][/#0000ff] [#0000ff]![[Image: blank.gif]](http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/images/blank.gif)
[/#0000ff]
While it appears both opponents and proponents have started seeing eye to eye on expansion of Michigan's three-decade-old bottle deposit law, the line of thought behind their agreement seems to be geared more toward recycling throughout the state than expanding the statute.
Both the business and environmental communities recently announced unified support on a new solid waste fee that would help further fund recycling programs in the state.
"We are all looking for the same end result, but we were going about it in different directions," said Mary Dechow, president of the Michigan Recycling Partnership, which started discussions leading to last week's announcement on Monday, June 16. "Ultimately, everybody wants to see more recycling."
Joining arms on six recycling principals, Dechow has reportedly said her group will continue opposing the expansion of the bottle law, though greater expansion would leave the issue moot.
"The aim of expansion is to increase recycling, so if we're already there, then all of a sudden expansion would be a duplicative program," she pointed out recently.
The most far-reaching proposal offered recently is agreement on a $3 per ton solid waste fee, which would be tacked onto trash coming into the state.
Other proposals include encouraging curbside recycling in urban communities, and recycling drop off centers in rural areas; establishing a tax incentive for businesses that incorporate recyclable material use; increased fines for littering; establishment of a statewide litter prevention, education and awareness program; and phasing in bans on recyclable materials in landfills.
The topic of modifying Michigan's bottle deposit law has been a long debated issue, stretching back almost to the law's inception.
The original deposit law was enacted following a voter-approved referendum in November 1976. The Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) is credited with penning the original bottle bill. In 1989, Michigan passed a law giving retailers 25 percent of unclaimed deposits — the other 75 percent is deposited in the state's environmental fund.
State law currently requires 10-cent deposits on containers of carbonated beverages, beer, mixed wine or spirit drinks, but does not cover juice, tea and water containers. Environmentalists say discarded containers from these drinks not currently covered by the law are piling up along roadways.
According to environmentalists and proponents for the statute, there are two main benefits to having a bottle deposit law in Michigan: recycling and litter reduction. Redeemed containers provide recycled glass, aluminum and plastic to replace virgin feed stocks. This leads to reduced energy consumption and emissions, including greenhouse gases. Container deposits reduce container litter along roads and beaches, reducing the costs in litter clean-up projects, as well as avoiding injuries to humans and damage to farm equipment and animals.
State Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema (R-Wyoming) announced in January the creation of a task force to review and consider changing the 26-year-old rule.
A series of public hearings has been held around the state in past months, receiving information from the public about what needs to be done before releasing a final report to the Legislature in September.
[#0000ff]Personaly I (davetclown) think that the deposit law should cover every portable drink container. The reason I feal this way is because I have spent countless hours picking up litter off the side of michigan roads and have found that the majority of all the litter I pick up is drink containers.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
[url "http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Michael%20Hoskins&-nothing"][#0000ff]by Michael Hoskins[/#0000ff][/url] [#0000ff][/#0000ff] [#0000ff]
[/#0000ff] While it appears both opponents and proponents have started seeing eye to eye on expansion of Michigan's three-decade-old bottle deposit law, the line of thought behind their agreement seems to be geared more toward recycling throughout the state than expanding the statute.
Both the business and environmental communities recently announced unified support on a new solid waste fee that would help further fund recycling programs in the state.
"We are all looking for the same end result, but we were going about it in different directions," said Mary Dechow, president of the Michigan Recycling Partnership, which started discussions leading to last week's announcement on Monday, June 16. "Ultimately, everybody wants to see more recycling."
Joining arms on six recycling principals, Dechow has reportedly said her group will continue opposing the expansion of the bottle law, though greater expansion would leave the issue moot.
"The aim of expansion is to increase recycling, so if we're already there, then all of a sudden expansion would be a duplicative program," she pointed out recently.
The most far-reaching proposal offered recently is agreement on a $3 per ton solid waste fee, which would be tacked onto trash coming into the state.
Other proposals include encouraging curbside recycling in urban communities, and recycling drop off centers in rural areas; establishing a tax incentive for businesses that incorporate recyclable material use; increased fines for littering; establishment of a statewide litter prevention, education and awareness program; and phasing in bans on recyclable materials in landfills.
The topic of modifying Michigan's bottle deposit law has been a long debated issue, stretching back almost to the law's inception.
The original deposit law was enacted following a voter-approved referendum in November 1976. The Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) is credited with penning the original bottle bill. In 1989, Michigan passed a law giving retailers 25 percent of unclaimed deposits — the other 75 percent is deposited in the state's environmental fund.
State law currently requires 10-cent deposits on containers of carbonated beverages, beer, mixed wine or spirit drinks, but does not cover juice, tea and water containers. Environmentalists say discarded containers from these drinks not currently covered by the law are piling up along roadways.
According to environmentalists and proponents for the statute, there are two main benefits to having a bottle deposit law in Michigan: recycling and litter reduction. Redeemed containers provide recycled glass, aluminum and plastic to replace virgin feed stocks. This leads to reduced energy consumption and emissions, including greenhouse gases. Container deposits reduce container litter along roads and beaches, reducing the costs in litter clean-up projects, as well as avoiding injuries to humans and damage to farm equipment and animals.
State Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema (R-Wyoming) announced in January the creation of a task force to review and consider changing the 26-year-old rule.
A series of public hearings has been held around the state in past months, receiving information from the public about what needs to be done before releasing a final report to the Legislature in September.
[#0000ff]Personaly I (davetclown) think that the deposit law should cover every portable drink container. The reason I feal this way is because I have spent countless hours picking up litter off the side of michigan roads and have found that the majority of all the litter I pick up is drink containers.[/#0000ff]
[signature]