Letter from the Executive Director

because these laws make them responsible for their products.  Yes, products--beverage containers are as much a product as is the beverage, often costing more than the beverage.  Through their high-paid lobbyists and trade associations, and especially through free-flowing campaign contributions, the beverage industry wields enormous power in the halls of Congress, and in every state legislature in the nation. 
But Hawaii proved that while the playing ground is anything but level, success is possible.  Led by Rep. Hermina Morita, a bi-partisan vote in the Legislature resulted in passage of the nation's 11^th bottle bill earlier this year.  The law will be implemented in January 2005.   
Unfortunately, vigilance will be needed to ensure that newly elected Governor Linda Lingle, who has vowed to repeal the law, will not succeed.   The beverage giants, Coke, Pepsi, and Anheuser-Busch will be working behind the scenes in Hawaii to repeal the law before it is implemented.
Packaged beverages bring huge profits to beverage manufacturers, and a few moments of refreshment to consumers.  Once the containers are empty, the containers become a public expense whether they are landfilled, littered, or recycled.  Deposits shift the burden of beverage container litter and waste from government and taxpayers to producers and consumers of the beverages, and they are popular with the public.  In poll after poll, Americans support paying small, refundable deposits on beverage containers to reduce litter, waste, and pollution, saving energy and resources and creating new jobs and new businesses.   
Opinion leaders and elected officials are told that taxpayer-funded curbside recycling programs are the solution to beverage container litter and wasting.  Unfortunately, curbside recycling cannot solve the litter problem, and it can't solve the wasting problem either.  The number of beverages consumed away from home is increasing. 
In addition, more than 40 percent of the American public does not have access to a curbside recycling program, and probably never will.  In fact, due to local budg

etary pressures, dozens of municipalities, including New York City have dropped one or more materials from their programs, and others in Texas, North Carolina, Kansas and elsewhere have dropped their curbside programs entirely.
In 2003, lawmakers in dozens of state legislatures, knowing that they have an uphill battle, will nevertheless introduce new bottle bill legislation, or proposals to expand existing bottle bills to include non-carbonated beverages.  These lawmakers want to stem the tide of beverage container litter and waste.  They know that deposit laws benefit the public.  More importantly, they are not afraid to take on the powerful beverage and grocery industry lobbies.
Two years ago in this column I said something that I think bears repeating: The undermining of bottle bills is out of step with the global trend toward greater producer responsibility. . . Deposit systems or bottle bills offer [beverage] companies and their consumers around the world a method for attacking a global wasting problem.  What each of us does today affects all of us in the future, and the future is not ours to waste.