WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-17 17:07:10 +0000

I'm opposed to bottle redemption in general. It teaches people bad recycling habits. However, I have been arguing for a while, and would change my opinion to support if implemented, that unclaimed redemptions should go to state charities. Then it would be a wash to choose betwixt recycling bottles regularly, and donating them to a charity directly. I maintain a separate recycling bin for my redeemables, and give them to the charity collecting at my town dump, since I'm way to affluent to care about a nickel. I would much rather know that by tossing my beer bottle in the bin with the rest of my recycling was sending cash to charity.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-17 17:38:27 +0000

I'd be happy to recycle my goods and donate the proceeds to charity as well, but I have always recycled anyways without Mass's incentive/punishment of the .05 thing. If I just have to pay more for stuff I can get other places cheaper, guess what I'm going to do? Amazing Mass. hasnt seemed to figure this out. _______________________________

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-17 17:46:14 +0000

In Michigan, the deposit is a dime. This is big money. An acquaintance of mine went to school in Pittsburgh, but his folks lived in Michigan. He could buy a case of knock off brand cola (RC, maybe? I don't remember) at the local store for $2.50 paying no deposit in PA, and then whenever he went home to visit his parents he would bring his cans and return them for $2.40. There's a racket.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-17 19:00:43 +0000

If the rationale is to make sure EVERY can is recycled, why not (this is by their line of thinking BTW - not mine)raise the deposit to .25 or even .50? SPOTLESS highways then. I just feel like $$$ for the state, or the FED gov't is always the proposed solution. If there are 10 bajillion rules as to what canister to recycle on what day while you run around in a circle 4 times and sign the BLUE form (not the RED one), of course a lot of people arent gonna give a shit and throw them in the trash. I have personally already recycled, without any fianncial incentive. Its just what I do. why am I penalized for the misdeeds of others? Id like to decide as an individual to give my money to charities and/or the gov't if Im so inclined. Why do they get to make that decision for me and then wind up with over 30 million dollars that they get to chose how to spend? uggh. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-17 22:42:11 +0000

Paying less for goods someplace other than MA: How many miles away are you willing to go to save 30 cents on a six pack? What's your miles per gallon these days?

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-17 22:48:51 +0000

Since the 5 cent deposit was set back in 1983, maybe it is time to adjust for inflation. It is a deposit, so, you can _get_the_money_back_ and then decide for yourself where to best spend it. Any place that collects deposits needs to pay them out, right? Bring your cans back on the return trip. I decide to recycle my returnables at the curb. Either the money goes to the city --I just feel like taking $$$ away from the state or Fed. government is always the proposed solution-- or someone in my community can make a couple bucks by picking from my trash. Haven't seen so many bottles and cans littering the highways as much as I see paper goods. Ever see someone litter? I got out of the car once on the O'Brien (McGrath?) in front of the Museum of Science to pick up a napkin the passenger in a car ahead of me threw out the window while we were sitting in traffic.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-17 23:17:14 +0000

If I am going to visit my parents (who want to see Maddie often - we probably go there once or twice a month)):I pick up a case or so If My parents are coming to visit to me (which also happens, I have them bring me some. Lately, I've just been drinking more good ol H2O. At any rate, I feel that this is a backwards policy and ,judging from the Boston globe's article, there are others out there that feel the same way. RL _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-17 23:21:24 +0000

But all of that ISNT WORKING. thats the point of the article. Bottles and Cans are filling up landfills AND the state has 35 million dollars of extra walking around money. something's rotten in Denmark... _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-18 01:46:12 +0000

another thought on the "you can get the money back" line of thinking: When companies such as Best Buy or Circuit city sell Tivos, DVD players, cordless phones etc, it is commonplace to have some sort of rebate. Yes, you can get it for cheaper if you follow all the small print BUT (and this is a big BUT(t?) )Best buy benefits from the immediate extra $$$ which inflates their earnings statements. Best Buy earns interest on all of the Refund money it holds onto in a pool (8-12 weeks for 'processing' time, anyone? sheesh.) Then to boot, most people dont read the fine print and dont get the rebate anyway. Back to MA: What are they doing with the interest on the $35 million? Can the people get that back? Deposits are asinine. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-18 04:01:02 +0000

I disagree that the bottle bill isn't working. At least, I disagree that it's a disaster. 1983 - inception 1995 - 87% return rate 2005 - 65% return rate Not a bad recycling rate, considering that 10%-15% of bottles with deposits get recycled via curbside or drop-off programs. Additionally, States with bottle bills have higher recycling rates than those without. A nickel in 1983 dollars is worth ten cents today. Boosting the deposit might increase redemption rates. ---- Sounds like the State is damned both ways: they practice "bad business" by inflating prices and driving consumers away; they practice "good business" by reaping the interest on money temporarily in their coffers. Which is it? ---- RE: interest on $35 million. The principal represents money the people have already given to the state by not redeeming their containers. If there is 2.2 billion bottles and cans purchased last fiscal year, that's $110 million in total deposits. $85 million came in and went out through the system, I have no idea how to figure out the interest that might have accrued on that money in one year.... well, we could make a guess... How about making the deposit a dime, and you get back 10.1 cents to cover any interest lost.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-18 14:52:24 +0000

If the good people of Mass decide (erroneously from my point of view) to use the same idea and just throw money at the problem, I know personally I'll be drinking lots more water. No offense, butI am seriously astounded that you think this deposit racket is a good idea. _______________________________

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-18 14:57:30 +0000

The article doesn't say that the bottles and cans are filling up landfills. It speculates that. All the article has for fact is that $35KK are leftover from the program. The amount that go to landfills or regular recycling is conjecture.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-18 15:00:00 +0000

I have the answer! Well, I have two potential answers: 1) Private Joke Soda Pop: You don't get it. 2) Queen City Tonic.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-18 18:27:57 +0000

If the purpose of the bottle bill is to increase recycling rates, then it is working. The article states that the 11 states with bottle bills have higher recycling rates. Much higher. The national average is 35% compared with MA's 67%. I see that as proof that the bottle bill works. If people had more incentive to redeem their bottles (via a higher deposit), maybe redemptions would increase, and the surplus would decrease (unless redemption rates stayed the same, then it would double). ----- What is the problem you are opposed to throwing money at? Container recycling rates or excess deposit collection?

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-18 18:28:25 +0000

Only available in Dixie(tm) cups!

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-18 18:36:20 +0000

It's worked to actually change people's habits as well. 10D may disagree with the method, however, even though the incentive has dropped by half in the past 23 years due to inflation the redemption rate has only dropped by a fifth from it's peak in 1997. Good work, Bay Staters!

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-18 18:56:07 +0000

I'm definitely opposed to excess deposit collection. (being serious w/ no sarcasm for a minute)I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by "container recycling rates". as far as incentive: It's not incentive, its tacking on unecessary money to a product that isnt worth that much. Should we have deposits on newspapers, milk jugs, coffee grounds for compost heaps? I've been recycling on my own since before high school. Good recycling habits are not going to be foisted on an individual by the state. It has to come from within. Why dont we assign responsibility and have faith in people to work these things out? Why is it always the state's job? Aside from losing my money, I feel like its condescending in that Ma. knows whats for my better good, so I should just relax, fund them, and enjoy the ride... I am under the impression from the other responses on this thread that everyone else is ok with the state having a large surplus as long as recycling rates are high. I also want high recycling rates, but not 30+ million that the state gets to with as it pleases... _______________________________

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-18 18:57:23 +0000

Recycling is the new Politics.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-18 20:52:06 +0000

I'm anti-deposit, but not for the state surplus rates, or state recycling rates, or becuase beer costs an extra $1.20 a case (all'y'all are pussies if you talk about sodapop or 6-packs). I'm anti-deposit because it makes recycling _more_difficult_ for *ME*. I have to have _another_ container in my garage to separate yet another category of things that get recycled differently. I have four recycling containers in my garage, and only that few because I choose to sift through my two types of plastic, tin cans an glass on the fly at the transfer station. Gah! Fuckers! Where did today go?

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-18 21:05:26 +0000

Theres all of that, too. I went to redeem a bunch of cans, bottles, and the like (approx 6 months worth - they were piling up in our scary basement) and it was the most frustrating, labor intensive and DISGUSTING task ever. We take these, but not those.... On another note, though: You honestly wouldn't want beer @ $1.20 less? I have a hard time grasping that concept. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-19 02:32:19 +0000

[back to the left, where I am comfortable] I say "container recycling rates" because the deposit applies to glass bottles, aluminum cans, and plastic bottles. Containers all. So, I see total container recycling rate for MA as the 67% redemption rate plus the 10-15% recycled via curbside pickup or drop-off. That's 77-82%! Because of that rate, I can only conclude that the bottle bill IS AN INCENTIVE TO RECYCLING THAT WORKS! How else do you explain that states with bottle bill laws have redemption rates that are TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE? Sorry to yell, but, come on!?! I did my Eagle Scout project on recycling, so I know all about forming recycling habits early. Containers are only valuable to recyclers if they are sorted. Yes, it is a pain in the ass; either you do it yourself and redeem your deposit, or you pay some 'tards to do it for you and get it collected, unsorted, at the curb. Recyclers prefer containers from redemption centers. The aluminum cans are all aluminum cans. Redemptions centers add value to the waste that curbside recycling or drop-off does not. Cans collected via redemption methods are more valuable, because of the additional time (and money) put into the process by the consumer. If you wanted to display good recycling ethics, you would not use curbside pickup and instead ensure that your recyclables are sorted thoroughly at the drop-off center or the redemption center. ---- I'd prefer beer to be cheaper, but, $1.20 a case? How many nights have I dropped nearly $20 bucks for three beers at a bar? Again, it's small change. ------ I see this as a personal responsibility issue. The state has a proven system for reducing waste that goes to landfills (A Good Thing(tm)). The system entails consumers to give up 5 cents per container, which is completely refundable, in order to boost recycling rates TO TWECE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. (I know, the yelling again). You, the consumer, are personally responsible for redeeming the deposit. If you want the state to lift that burden from you, that's your perogative. In theory this system works with no out-of-pocket expense to the consumer. It has astounding results. If it's possible to achieve this without expense (and I argue that we are getting these results without public expense, indeed we get these results with public profit), I'm all ears.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-19 02:33:53 +0000

I would not want a case of beer at $1.20 less if that means containers are recycled at a rate less than 50% of what we achieve now.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-08-19 05:19:11 +0000

If the deposit was higher, the Wadsworth back porch yield would double!

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-19 12:57:01 +0000

Frankly, I don't care how much my beer costs, because once I have it I'm _drinking_.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-19 13:35:27 +0000

Mr TGL, please. An Eagle Scout report on recycling? Maybe you should have done one on reading and understanding statistics... or, more importantly, how to lie with them. The 65% recycling rate is only for containers with deposits. The bulk of our containers do not have deposit, and I don't think that our numbers will be quite so high with the whole enchilada. Also, comparing a blue state's (sorry rladew) recycling rates with the rest of the nation and attributing its success to a strange policy as opposed to analyzing its constituency first is naive. As an avid recycler, I stand by my original stance: bottle deposits make it more difficult to recycle, and on the long term will hurt recycling, while on the short term it may have a slight impact on a subset of the problem with a subset of the population. Wow, Libertarian insight! Container Redemtion is to recycling as Affirmative Action is to racism! Discuss. Aside: Who's seen the recycling song episode of Rocko's Modern Life... fantastic.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-19 13:52:30 +0000

65% is for containers with deposits. 35% is the national average for all containers. You're right, there is a difference. Maybe we need to look at per capita container consumption and recycling. Whatever the yardstick, I'm confident that MA, IL, MI, et al. bottle bill states far exceed those places that lack the bill. Your efforts sorting for the redemption center make the end product more valuable. Either we use the incentive of the deposit to get individuals to responsibly sort their containers, or we collect unsorted materials and pay others to do the job for us. I can't see why people who abhor government spending are against this program. If you redeem your deposit, there is no cost to you the consumer, and no cost to local government. If you recycle via curbside methods, the local government must pay others to sort for you. Deposits promote responsible recycling behavior. The difficulty you shoulder is needed in order to produce a valuable resource.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-19 15:02:20 +0000

you're right. I stand corrected. _______________________________

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-19 18:27:11 +0000

No. No. No. No. My effort sorting my plastics, glass, tin, cardboard, etc goes toward making the end product more valuable. My effort separating my redeemable glass from my glass, my redeemable plastic from my plastic, my redeemable tin from my tin, is a sheer waste of time. I love government spending. And I love government funding. I just think this is a weak program that, like Affirmative Action, is a good idea to open people's eyes, but is not a good long term solution. Each should run their courses, and then make way for a better program, or have a little more responsibility placed on the people to do the right thing. By the way, my company's motto is "Do the right thing."

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-19 18:37:35 +0000

"Incentive" is such an unfortunate, Orwellian euphemism for "Direct Government Control" _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-19 18:48:45 +0000

The good Brother Reverend once said: "Always Do The Right Thing" _______________________________

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-20 01:25:39 +0000

Having just moved to a regressive recycling state/city, I must add my 5 cents. Ha-ha. My recycling is now picked up on the 1st Wednesday of every month. Trash every Wednesday. They only take paper and metal. No glass. No plastic. No styrofoam. I'm looking into where to take the rest of it, 'cause my conscience can't take all that waste. I started the paper recycling program in my high school and was a reformer in the recycling program at Brandeis. It was started by a couple of guys 3 years ahead of me...BURP! (Brandeis University Recycling Program...! was included). When I got involved, I would spend Saturday afternoons rinsing vomit and cigarette buts out of beer bottles. Extr-gross. It was an all-volunteer, all-student-run program...until I said that we should ask to be paid for it. By the time I graduated, I think it was possible to get credit for work-study that way. I lost the point... Oh, yeah. At least you can put most everything recyclable out on the curb where you are weekly. So quit your whining!

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-08-20 17:54:13 +0000

rladew and I can't put shit on the curb in our styx.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-20 18:35:49 +0000

Monson is definitely "Come Sail Away" land... _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-21 23:06:29 +0000

I missed this being away last week. A couple quick points: Sounds like the deposit should be adjusted for inflation. 10 cents makes sense, or even 15 by now. "Michigan has a 10-cent deposit and its redemption rate has hovered around 90 percent." Awesome. Bottle redemption is the biggest source of income for homeless people. Pulling the plug on them would be a mistake, as they help the recycling effort (let alone the money they make to support themselves.)

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-21 23:51:05 +0000

I think you'll find that items collected through the redemption centers are sold at higher rates than those collected through city and town recycling centers. I came away with that impression from the article. When in Cambridge, the drop-off center collected all containers, plastics (1-7), aluminum, glass, tin in one dumpster. I can only imagine that some one or thing was paid to sort it. I'm for more government spending as well; let's get up to 25% of GDP again!

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-21 23:57:05 +0000

I'm having Cambridge Drop-Off Center withdrawal. Lynn is a bit better than Nashville (Plastics #1 & #2 curbside!), but not by much.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-22 13:12:16 +0000

welcome back Dawn! We Missed you! :) _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-22 15:20:43 +0000

What's your incentive for working? What's your incentive for recycling? "Direct Government control?" Bullshit.

Posted by rladew on 2005-08-22 15:55:55 +0000

New Homeless Initiative To Raise Bottle Deposit To 12 Cents (THE ONION circa DECEMBER 2004) WASHINGTON, DC—A bipartisan Congressional initiative passed Monday promises that relief, in the form of a national, 12-cent bottle-and-can refund, will soon come to the nation's estimated 600,000 homeless. "We can no longer ignore the problem of homelessness in our country," Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) said. "Under the new program, all aluminum and glass beverage containers will be required to carry a minimum refund value of 12 cents, boosting homeless citizens' incomes and endowing them with a sense of pride in their work." Citing the track records of local deposit plans, the Subcommittee on Human Resources drew up a proposal that would tap into the nation's existing infrastructure to minimize the homeless epidemic without creating budgetary hurdles. Dubbed the Shelter And Recycling Initiative (SARI), it is the first nation-wide, federally mandated bottle-deposit program. It is also the first government program designed to lift the burden of homelessness from the taxpayers' shoulders. "For homeless can-collectors in my home state of Michigan, the plan represents a 20-percent raise," Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) said. "For those in states like California, New York, and Iowa, it represents a whopping 140 percent wage increase. Everyone wins: The homeless enjoy a higher standard of living, and we taxpayers enjoy cleaner streets, free of cans and bottles!" Under the plan, an additional 50,000 bottle-and-can redemption machines will be placed in front of the nation's grocery stores to cut down on the amount of time homeless people spend in line. "This is the best way to help the homeless help themselves," Camp said. "Think of how good they'll feel about themselves when they can march right up to that refund machine, deposit their grocery basket full of bottles and cans, roll on over to the register, and pay for their Dinty Moore stew with money they've earned." According to Camp, if the homeless can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" after the return-rate increase, then "there is no helping them." _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 16:22:27 +0000

I may have used a variant on the "homeless" argument for support of the bottle bill. (Most of the people who collected cans in my East Cambridge were not homeless. Poor, though, that's true). I can't see the homeless angle being a very strong argument for the bottle bill. It's definitely not the solution for homelessness. As I've also stated, government should be spending much more, across the board, this includes support services for those who choose to live without an address. I'm Googling for a story a while back of an Asian immigrant couple from California who sent their son to Harvard. They supplemented their income with bottle redemptions.

Posted by Honar the librarian on 2005-08-22 16:39:25 +0000

I thought the family was Latino, actually.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 16:49:10 +0000

Sorry, my prejudice about hardworking Asians triumphing over adversity must have colored my memory.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-08-22 16:55:11 +0000

You said colored.

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-22 17:07:31 +0000

Apparently, they suspended Nashville home recycling pick up for a few years and just re-established the service. Found out they do take plastic bottles. I'm saving my styrofoam packing from furniture, etc to take to the drop-off center at Hillsboro High School down the road.

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 17:26:18 +0000

... I've decided it's best to refrain from responding. That's right, I'm a _________.

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-22 17:27:00 +0000

knitter?

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-22 17:29:31 +0000

NC

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-22 17:30:57 +0000

non-committal?

Posted by frame609 on 2005-08-22 17:31:25 +0000

pooooooo-say

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-22 18:41:02 +0000

Tar Heel

Posted by Miriam on 2005-08-22 18:43:12 +0000

Nice Christian?