|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Second, the amount of PET bottles exported to China and other countries increased 200% between 1998 and 2002. Foreign companies are able to outbid American companies, in part because their labor costs for processing and remanufacturing are lower.
Finally, beverage cans and bottles are increasingly being drained at the office, at soccer practice, in the park, on the beach, or at a hotel. Curbside recycling programs do not target these bottles and cans.
The export problem is not easily resolved. But the problems of contamination and away-from-home consumption can be resolved with new and expanded deposit/return programs, or bottle bills.
Contamination is minimized in deposit/return programs because bottles and cans are sorted by container type (aluminum, plastic or glass). Deposit programs also target used beverage containers at offices, schools, ballgames, restaurants, hotels and anywhere else they end up.
The public "gets it." Recent public opinion polls in New York, Michigan and Iowa confirm statewide and national polls conducted over the past 30 years. In all three of these state polls, more than 4 out of 5 consumers said they liked their bottle bills, and 3 out of 4 thought the laws should be updated to include bottled water and other non-carbonated beverages.
Certainly the container manufacturing companies and companies that process scrap materials "get it." The current PET plastic supply crisis prevents companies from expanding. Some will go out of business if the supply shortage is not reversed. They know that new and expanded deposit laws would generate a steady supply of clean materials.
So who doesn't get it? The multi-national beverage companies: Coke, Pepsi and Anheuser-Busch.
These companies are holding expanded bottle bills hostage in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Michigan, and are thwarting new bottle bill efforts in Colorado, West Virginia,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tennessee and Mississippi. They oppose deposits because these laws make them responsible for their used containers.
The powerful beverage industry giants are muzzling the container manufacturers from whom they buy their beer and soda cans and bottles and they're muzzling the processors who buy used "deposit" containers from them.
Through their trade associations and high priced lobbyists, Coke, Pepsi and Anheuser-Busch wield enormous political clout in every state legislature in the nation, and in the halls of Congress.
But American consumers have the ultimate power: the power of the purse. If, and when, we decide to invoke that power, the beverage giants will "get it." If you are a beverage consumer and a bottle bill supporter, I urge you to go to CRI's website (www.container-recycling.org/endorse) and send this simple message to beverage producers:
"I drink (Coke, Pepsi, Budweiser, etc.) and I support the bottle bill. I am willing to assume responsibility for my used bottles and cans by taking them back to a grocery store or a redemption center. As the producer of my beverage, won't you meet me halfway? Please accept some responsibility for the products that your company profits from, and start supporting--not thwarting--beverage container deposit legislation."
Make your voice heard. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
