Has this website been useful?

We depend on your financial contributions to keep it running!
  Please help us out with a donation today.

Contents | Page1 | Page2 | Page3 | Page4 | Page5 | Page6 | Page7 | Page8 | Page9 | Page10 | Page11 | Page12

BPEC Goes Public

WASHINGTON, DC — Three years ago, the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) adopted the “Beverage Container Recycling Challenge.” It acknowledged that recycling had slipped despite increased curbside access, and said the private sector had not devised “effective nationwide strategies…to reverse these declines.” NRC pledged to “...work extensively with all stakeholders to research the issue; to devise and implement policies, programs and strategies to increase food and beverage container recycling; and to set measurable and verifiable targets to track progress.”

In 2003, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Anheuser-Busch, Miller and other major brand owners formed the Beverage Packaging Environmental Council (BPEC), presumably in response to the NRC Challenge. BPEC held two years of closed-door meetings. Kate Krebs, NRC executive director and BPEC facilitator said the secrecy was necessary to build trust among the corporate competitors

On August 28, 2005, BPEC made its first public appearance--a slideshow presented by a consulting team at the NRC Congress in Minneapolis.

BPEC’s key finding was that contrary to popular belief, 68% of beverages are consumed at home, not on the go. The presentation made general recommendations to improve curbside recycling in non-deposit states, and to beef up workplace recycling in 15 metropolitan areas, but offered no programmatic or financial specifics.

In late September, CRI expressed its concerns in letters to Kate Krebs and the NRC Board; and to Scott Vitters, Environmental Manager for Coca-Cola, and BPEC point person. In the letters, CRI:

• inquired about the fiscal and legal relationship between NRC and BPEC. (Coke and other industry leaders are large contributors to the NRC;)
• noted the limited stakeholder involvement in the two-year study period--contrary to the pledge in NRC’s Container Challenge
• asked to see BPEC’s point-of-consumption data , and suggested that it be aggregated, or have company names blacked out, to protect their privacy
• denounced the absence of numerical recycling goals , dates, and concrete programmatic recommendations; and,
• questioned the omission of a discussion about “who pays.

On November 2nd, a BPEC page was added to the NRC’s website: http://www.nrc-recycle.org/partnerships/bpec/. While some of CRI’s questions were addressed in two documents posted there, others were not. Most notable was that NRC has still not disclosed its fiscal relationship with BPEC, renewed its pledge to include all stakeholders in future discussions, made concrete recommendations to increase recycling, or explained who will foot the bill for new programs. BPEC also reiterated that they would not release their point-of-consumption data.

In addition to the questions CRI still has about the BPEC research, we are concerned about the lack of transparency in the process. These concerns were expressed in another round of letters to Kate Krebs and Scott Vitters on November 14, 2005, in which CRI requested to meet with BPEC and NRC.

In an effort to involve members of the recycling community and other interested parties, CRI has developed a BPEC page on our website (www.container-recycling.org/bpec) that will be updated as BPEC evolves.

More than $700,000 in campaign contributions helps sink bottle bill expansion in Connecticut in 2005

The fight over Connecticut’s bottle and can deposit law is a perennial battle in the Connecticut General Assembly, according to Sauer, with proponents and opponents negating each other and the law remaining un-touched. However, in the 2005 session, Senate President Pro Tem Don Williams took on the entrenched industry lobby, and on April 20 led the Senate in passing legislation (a.k.a. “the bottle bill”) that updated Connecticut’s beverage container deposit law to include bottled water, by far the largest sector of the non-carbonated beverage market. The bill passed the Senate by a 31 to 3 margin.

“Opponents sprang into action,” said Betty McLaughlin, Environmental Affairs Director for the Connecticut Audubon Society. McLaughlin said an “all-points-bulletin” was sent out to lobbyists representing the various interests, and the State Capitol was inundated with roughly 30 lobbyists hoping to compel House leadership to bury the bottle bill.

“At a time when the legislature was grappling with issues such as the state budget, transportation, government ethics and campaign finance reform,” said McLaughlin, “all the talk outside the House, generated completely by lobbyists, centered on the bottle bill.” In the end, according to McLaughlin, the legislation was never voted on in the House, and the bottle bill died.

“With a large amount of contributions going to legislative races or PACs formed on behalf of legislators (a.k.a. “leadership PACs”),” said Sauer, “it is easy to understand why state representatives would be wary of voting on the bottle bill. It doesn’t take much money to destabilize a state House race, and no doubt House members were aware that those who fund their campaign could easily fund a competitor’s.”

“This year’s bottle bill was one more example of the corrosive influences of money in politics,” said Sauer. “The ability of bottle bill opponents to prevent a House vote, derived solely from excessive campaign contributions, on a bill that has overwhelmingly passed one chamber, represents a corruption of the legislative process.”

In addition to more than $700,000 in campaign contributions, the report revealed that regional Coca-Cola and Pepsi bottlers pay Connecticut lobbyists $168,200 and $50,000 a year, respectively, and Anheuser-Busch and Miller Brewing together pay a total of $10,000 a month. Payments to lobbyists by convenience store owners, grocers and water companies will total at least $250,000 in 2005.