Christos DimoulisEvereadyBottleBillNegpage 1 of 6 January 22, 2009

Bottle Bill: Neg

1. SIGNIFICANCE:1.1. No need for government regulations1.2. Curbside (SQ) much better1.3. Enough landfill space1.4. Landfills not deadly or dangerous1.5. Resource availability growing, not being depleted, being replaced

2. SOLVENCY: 2.1. Bottle Bill = headaches for multi-state companies2.2. Litigation emerging in response to the Bottle Bill2.3. Bottle Bill hurting Michigan 2.4. Cost for a National BB estimated 10 billion 2.5. Nowhere for Supermarkets to keep the bottles2.6. Sanitation problems2.7. Bottle Bill would need pick up infrastructure = more pollution2.8. People tired of these policies due to many issues

3. DISADVANTAGES3.1. Sanitation decrease in supermarkets3.2. Decrease in revenue from less bottle purchases

1. SIGNIFICANCE:

1.1. No need for government regulationsJames M. Taylor, The Heartland Institute, “Jeffords pushes mandatory national recycling plan” 09/01/2002, http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/artic le/10096/Jef-fords_pushes_mandatory_national_recycling_plan.html

Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, disagrees. “When recycling makes economic sense, government doesn’t have to mandate it or subsidize it. Somebody in the private sector will be happy to pay you for your garbage or, alternatively, charge you less for re-cycling services than for landfilling services.”

1.2. Curbside (SQ) much betterLuke Schmidt (Schmidt is president of the National Association for PET Con-tainer Resources), National Association for PET Container Resources Op-Ed,

Christos DimoulisEvereadyBottleBillNegpage 2 of 6 January 22, 2009

“Deposit pros, cons”, March 6, 2000. http://toolkit.bottlebill.org/opposition/arguments/napcor-op-ed.htm

Since the late 1980s, America has gone through a major recycling evolution with the massive de-velopment of curbside and dropoff recycling programs. Today, millions of Americans participate in more than 9,000 curbside and 10,000 dropoff recycling programs. Virtually every large and medium-sized city has curbside recycling. Other more rural communities, such as Sullivan County, Tenn., provide outstanding regional dropoff recycling programs. Why are voluntary curbside and dropoff recycling programs better than deposit collection systems? First, traditional deposit systems collect only aluminum cans, glass containers and PET plastic containers. That amounts to less than 2.5 percent of all solid waste. Second, curbside and dropoff recycling pro-grams collect a much wider variety of materials: all PET containers with a screw top (food, bev-erage, and nonfood containers), aluminum cans, all glass containers, all HDPE containers with a screw top, newspaper, steel containers, etc. Third, curbside programs are easy to participate in. All the consumer has to do is to walk to the end of his or her driveway once a week. In order to participate in a deposit system, the consumer has to drive back to the store and lug a bunch of dirty, empty bottles and cans to a counter and wait in line until he/she can be served. The Na-tional Association for PET Container Resources believes this country needs more support for the promotion of existing curbside and dropoff recycling programs. History tells us that when home-owners are informed about curbside recycling and what can be collected, they will participate. Deposit laws are a 1970s approach to the issue. Curbside and dropoff recycling is the smart way to recycle more of our municipal solid waste.

1.3. Enough landfill spaceDaniel K. Benjamin, The Heartland Institute, “Mandatory Recycling Wastes Resources, Harms Environment” 03/01/2004, http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/14557/MandatoryRecycling_Wastes_Resources_Harms_Environment.html

Myth: We are running out of room for trash.In the 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency launched this myth with a study showing the number of landfills in the United States was falling. True, but the landfills were getting bigger, and the total capacity was increasing! Today we have 18 years’ worth of landfill capacity nation-wide--even if no other landfills are built. Seattle sends its trash to Gillam County, Oregon. Addi-tional landfills can be added there when needed.

1.4. Landfills not deadly or dangerousDaniel K. Benjamin, The Heartland Institute, “Mandatory Recycling Wastes Resources, Harms Environment” 03/01/2004,

Christos DimoulisEvereadyBottleBillNegpage 3 of 6 January 22, 2009

http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/14557/MandatoryRecycling_Wastes_Resources_Harms_Environment.html

Myth: Our garbage is dangerous.EPA (known for being extra-cautious) says a modern landfill could cause one cancer-related death every 50 years. To put this in perspective, cancer kills more than 560,000 people every year in the United States. Fears of landfills are based largely on confusion with hazardous indus-trial waste disposal sites.

1.5. Resource availability growing, not being depleted, being replacedDaniel K. Benjamin, The Heartland Institute, “Mandatory Recycling Wastes Resources, Harms Environment” 03/01/2004, http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/14557/MandatoryRecycling_Wastes_Resources_Harms_Environment.html

Available stocks of most natural resources are actually growing rather than shrinking. How do we know? Market prices measure natural resource scarcity. Falling prices indicate a material is becoming more plentiful, and that is exactly what continues to happen for almost all raw materi-als. Resources such as timber are renewable, and non-renewable resources are more available than ever. They go much farther than they used to, and some have been replaced by resources that are even more plentiful. Skyscrapers and bridges use less steel than in the past; optical fiber (made from sand) carries 625 times more calls than the copper wire of 20 years ago. The list goes on.

2. SOLVENCY:

2.1. Bottle Bill = headaches for multi-state companiesMichael DeMasi,The Business Review (Albany), “Judge issues injunction against bottle bill”, http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2009/05/25/daily22.html

The judge did not set a date for the next step in the lawsuit; rather, he asked attorneys for Nestle and the state to submit motions, Flaherty [spokesman for Nestle Waters North America, Inc.] said. In the state budget, approved last month, legislators expanded the bottle bill to apply to unsweetened water. That means grocery and convenience stores would have to accept and store more empty bottles. The budget also mandates that bottled beverages sold in New York must have a distinctive bar code so recyclers know which bottles qualify for the five-cent redeemable deposit. That created potential headaches for companies such as Nestle that sell bottled water in more than one state.

2.2. Litigation emerging in response to the Bottle BillIrene Jay Liu, Times Union, “Judge issues injunction on bottle bill”, May 27, 2009, http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/14911/judge-issues-injunction-on-bottle-bill/

Christos DimoulisEvereadyBottleBillNegpage 4 of 6 January 22, 2009

A federal judge has just issued an injunction putting the scheduled June 1 implementation of New York’s new expanded bottle law on hold. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Griesa ruled from the bench in New York City early this afternoon during a hearing on the lawsuit against the state filed last week by a coalition of bottled water companies. Brian Flaherty, director of public affairs for Connecticut-based Nestle Waters North America Inc., said the judge   cited objections raised by the bottlers and distributors to the new law’s requirement that all returnable bottles carry a New York-specific UPC bar code. “The court today highlighted the Constitutional and due process problems with New York’s new bottle bill,” he said. “The opportunity that we see today is, first, stopping an unconstitutional law. But more importantly, in the pause that will take place, we now can reinforce that this needs to be a better bill and can be, environmentally.”

2.3. Bottle Bill hurting Michigan Sarah Amandolare, Bottle Bill Resource Guide, “Michigan’s Generous Bottle Refund Law Poses Problems”, October 28, 2008, http://www.findingdulcinea.com/employees/editorial/sarah-amandolare.html

Michigan is facing two separate recycling issues: eliminating illegal returns, and a decision over whether or not to expand the current bottle deposit law. Bottle Deposit Dilemma It’s an episode of Seinfeld come to life in Michigan, where out-of-state consumers have been cashing in on the state’s 10-cent bottle deposit law . Although 10 other states “encourage recycling by adding a re - fundable deposit to beer, soft drink and other beverage containers,” Michigan is the only state of-fering a 10-cent refund per bottle, leaving it particularly vulnerable to fraudulence. Illegal returns have cost Michigan $10 million per year, money that could have gone to environmental causes, according to the Associated Press.

2.4. Cost for a National BB estimated 10 billion Minnesota Issue Watch, “Recycling rates dropping, national bottle bill considered”, September 1, 2002, http://www.gda.state.mn.us/issues/resource.html?Id=2663

Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont has ordered the hearings to create momentum for a national bot-tle bill. Under the proposal, beverage companies would be required to ensure that at least 80 per-cent of bottles and cans are recycled in the next two years. Americans would be required to pay a 10-cent deposit upon purchase, which could be redeemed upon recycling. The law would super-sede the 11 state bottle laws already on the books. Beverage companies contend that it would cost at least $10 billion to get a national recycling system up and running. Much of the cost, they say, would be passed on to the consumer.

2.5. Nowhere for Supermarkets to keep the bottlesBuck Quigly, Art Voice, “No Deposit, No Return”, (strange source, I know)..quoting Michael Rosen, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, and General

Christos DimoulisEvereadyBottleBillNegpage 5 of 6 January 22, 2009

Counsel for the Food Industry Alliance, a state-wide not-for-profit trade association that repre-sents all sizes of food stores. http://artvoice.com/issues/v6n4/no_deposit_no_return

“There are a number of issues that will have a dramatic impact on supermarkets. The first is that supermarkets redeem more containers than they sell. Typically between 120 and 130 percent. In New York City, supermarkets redeem between 200 and 300 percent. Where will they put the ad-ditional containers?” says Rosen.

2.6. Sanitation problemsBuck Quigly, Art Voice, “No Deposit, No Return”, (strange source, I know)..quoting Michael Rosen, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, and General Counsel for the Food Industry Alliance, a state-wide not-for-profit trade association that repre-sents all sizes of food stores. http://artvoice.com/issues/v6n4/no_deposit_no_return

“A second issue deals with sanitation. In urban areas you’ll have street people who go through parks and trash cans and recycling bins and pick up containers and sometimes sleep with them, but in any event they certainly don’t rinse them out, and containers come back to us with all kinds of infestations.”What are some typical infestations? “We find everything from mice and small rodents to insects. So what does the government want us to be: a food store or a recycling center? We can do one or the other, but we can’t do both well.”

2.7. Bottle Bill would need pick up infrastructure = more pollutionLuke Schmidt (Schmidt is president of the National Association for PET Con-tainer Resources), National Association for PET Container Resources Op-Ed, “Deposit pros, cons”, March 6, 2000. http://toolkit.bottlebill.org/opposition/arguments/napcor-op-ed.htm

First, deposit laws are expensive. Like it or not, consumers prefer the convenience of nonreturn-able packaging. Implementing a deposit system requires a huge investment in new trucks to pick up the bottles and cans, which adds pollution to the air and requires the use of more gasoline.

2.8. People tired of these policies due to many issuesJames M. Taylor, The Heartland Institute, “Jeffords pushes mandatory national recycling plan” 09/01/2002, http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/artic le/10096/Jef-fords_pushes_mandatory_national_recycling_plan.html

Since the early 1990s, however, the number of mandatory recycling programs has fallen as peo-ple got fed up with all the washing, storing, and returning of soda, juice, and beer cans—not to mention the pests that such cans attracted while sitting in household storage. When experience proved the bothersome programs made little economic sense, many were scrapped.

Christos DimoulisEvereadyBottleBillNegpage 6 of 6 January 22, 2009

3. DISADVANTAGES

3.1. Sanitation decrease in supermarketsLuke Schmidt (Schmidt is president of the National Association for PET Con-tainer Resources), National Association for PET Container Resources Op-Ed, “Deposit pros, cons”, March 6, 2000. http://toolkit.bottlebill.org/opposition/arguments/napcor-op-ed.htm

Second, implementing a deposit system requires food retailers to accept the redeemed bottles and cans. Most food retailers do not have adequate space to handle returned containers. As such, re-turned, empty and dirty bottles and cans are often stored near fresh food and produce. Rodent control often becomes a problem. No one wants to purchase groceries in such a setting.

3.2. Decrease in revenue from less bottle purchasesLuke Schmidt (Schmidt is president of the National Association for PET Con-tainer Resources), National Association for PET Container Resources Op-Ed, “Deposit pros, cons”, March 6, 2000. http://toolkit.bottlebill.org/opposition/arguments/napcor-op-ed.htm

Third, implementation of a deposit law system in many cases leads to a decrease in soft drink and beer sales, which results in a loss of sales tax revenue to states.