You are on page 1of 6

Bottle Bill(Neg) Matthew Hamilton, Eveready ___________________________________________________________________________________

Bottle Bill(Neg)
Table of Contents 1. New York Bottle Bill..............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Federal Judge Says it is Unconstitutional........................................................................................1 1.2 Nestle Against Bill...........................................................................................................................2 1.3 Water Companies Against Bill........................................................................................................2 2. Michigan Bottle Bill...............................................................................................................................2 2.1 Michigan's Bottle Bill is Stressful on Retailers...............................................................................2 3. Tennessee Bottle Bill..............................................................................................................................3 3.1 Consumers Are Actually at a 3 Cent Loss.......................................................................................3 3.2 TGCSA and TOMA Against Bill.....................................................................................................3 3.3 Jarron Springer's Statement.............................................................................................................4 3.4 Tennessee Currently Has Liter Grant Program...............................................................................4 3.5 Bottles and Cans 9% of Roadside Litter in TN...............................................................................4 3.6 Requires a New Government Bureaucracy.....................................................................................5 3.7 Would Send More TN Shoppers Across the Border........................................................................5 3.8 Easy Fraud.......................................................................................................................................5 3.9 Example of Curbside Litter Initiative..............................................................................................5 3.10 Redemption Creates Trash and Sanitation Problems....................................................................6 4. Managing People....................................................................................................................................6 3.1 Our Culture and Recycle Bins.........................................................................................................6 3.2 We Can't Manage Everything..........................................................................................................6

1. New York Bottle Bill
1.1 Federal Judge Says it is Unconstitutional NACS Online, "Judge Rules N.Y. Bottle Law Unconstitutional", June 1, 2009, http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Daily/Pages/ND0601092.aspx WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. – A federal judge has ruled that New York state’s bottle is unconstitutional, therefore halting enforcement of the law, the Daily Star reports. The law, which was supposed to take effect today, requires return deposits on water bottles. U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa’s decision revolved around the law’s provision to have water bottles display special labels indicating they can be sold only in New York. The judge said that provision breached the Constitution’s commerce clause. 1.2 Nestle Against Bill Nestle Waters North America, "New York Bottle Bill Delayed until April 2010 - Governor and 1 of 6

Bottle Bill(Neg) Matthew Hamilton, Eveready ___________________________________________________________________________________ Legislature Now Have Time to “Get it Right,” says Nestlé Waters", May 29, 2009, http://www.press.nestle-watersna.com/press/New-York-Bottle-Bill-Delayed-until-April-2010Governor-and-Legislature-Now-Have-Time-to-Get-it-Right.htm “Nestle Waters strongly supports laws that advance convenient recycling programs and protect the environment. The best laws encourage comprehensive recycling, promote consumer health, and apply to all beverages. The New York Bottle Bill fails to accomplish these goals and actually hurts community-based recycling. It is also unconstitutional and leaves New York without a viable and effective program. 1.3 Water Companies Against Bill Laurie Wheelock, “Bottle Bill Update: Order Authorizes State To Begin Collecting Unclaimed Deposits on Bottled Beverages”, Sive Paget & Riesel P.C.(A blog, but this does not disqualify it as a source because it is just reporting news, not making scientific statements), August 18, 2009, http://blog.sprlaw.com/2009/08/bottle-bill-update-order-authorizes-state-to-begin-collectingunclaimed-deposits-on-bottled-beverages/ The Bill, which was passed in April, was challenged in May when Nestle, the Polar Corp., and the International Bottled Water Association (collectively, the “water companies”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The water companies claimed that the Bill was unconstitutional because it violated the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and Substantive Due Process of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Thomas P. Griesa of the United States District Court in Manhattan ruled in favor of the water companies when he determined that certain provisions of the Bill were unconstitutional. In particular, the requirement that a NY State-specific UPC be placed on all bottles sold in the state was found unconstitutional due to infringement on interstate commerce. For more information on Judge Griesa’s reasons for issuing the preliminary injunction see our prior post on that ruling.

2. Michigan Bottle Bill
2.1 Michigan's Bottle Bill is Stressful on Retailers South Bend Tribune(Editorial,) "Michigan's bottle bill needs broader look," November 19, 2008, http://www.bottlebill.org/news/articles/2008/MI-11-19-MIsBBNeedsBroadered. Htm Now that the state's residents are increasingly turning to nonfizzy drinks and tossing away more than 1 billion of those containers each year, effort to control that trash makes sense. Tweaking the container law, however, may not be the best way. The current law is awkward for consumers, and a burden on retailers who already are stressed in the 2 of 6

Bottle Bill(Neg) Matthew Hamilton, Eveready ___________________________________________________________________________________ state's economic downturn. Further, the issue ought to be examined more broadly given the considerable change in social consciousness on litter and recycling in the past 30 years. Michigan, the first state in the nation to pass a container law, still has the lowest overall recycling rate among the Great Lakes states. Only 37 percent of Michigan residents have access to curbside service, well below the regional 65 percent average and national 50 percent average. The money to modify an already costly returnables program might be better spent on demonstration projects with the potential for wider environmental benefit.

3. Tennessee Bottle Bill
3.1 Consumers Are Actually at a 3 Cent Loss Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf Known as the “bottle bill,” the forced deposit legislation would increase prices by 8¢ on virtually every beverage bought in Tennessee – an extra $2 per case of bottled water, soda, or beer, for example. 3¢ of that increase is a tax that consumers won’t see again. Consumers could get a nickel of the 8¢ back if they go through the hassle of separating deposit containers from the rest of their recyclables and find a redemption center that will take them back. These price increases would come on top of Tennessee’s already high sales tax. By raising the cost of living even higher in Tennessee, the bill would encourage even more Tennesseans to shop in bordering states. 3.2 TGCSA and TOMA Against Bill Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association (TGCSA) and Tennessee Oil Marketers Association (TOMA) are two primary retail grocery and convenience associations forming a coalition to oppose an outdated idea that would create massive new consumer costs and state bureaucracy by forcing the public to recycle used bottles and cans. The groups are working against SB1408 and HB1829. On the surface, the theory sounds good – the program would result in consumers returning their empty containers for a refund. But in practice, experts say, the programs cost consumers millions in higher prices, fall well short of their environmental goals, complicate recycling for consumers, and cost states millions more in administrative funds to operate.

3 of 6

Bottle Bill(Neg) Matthew Hamilton, Eveready ___________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3 Jarron Springer's Statement Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf “This is a new tax, pure and simple. It’s a nickel deposit plus a three cent tax per container. There are a handful of people peddling an old approach to recycling that has proven ineffective at everything except collecting millions of dollars from shoppers, making state governments bigger and making it more complicated for people to recycle,” said Jarron Springer, executive director of the Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association. “This old idea is a relic of the 1970s – it ignores the huge growth of modern voluntary and municipal curbside recycling efforts that are much more progressive and efficient.” 3.4 Tennessee Currently Has Liter Grant Program Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf Tennessee already has the Litter Grant program, which includes a tax on sodas and beer that is collected and distributed to all 95 Tennessee counties for collection of all roadside litter, not just the removal of bottles and cans. 3.5 Bottles and Cans 9% of Roadside Litter in TN Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf Deposits ignore more than 90 percent of litter. A 2006 roadside litter survey in Tennessee by R.W Beck, Inc. detailed that only 9 percent of litter consisted of bottles, cans, tabs, seals, caps and anything related to beverage containers. This 9 percent also included containers (i.e. wine and milk) that are not a part of the current bottle bill legislation. Therefore, even if deposits could successfully remove every littered beverage container and items related to beverage containers, over 91 percent of all litter would still remain untouched on Tennessee's streets and highways. The Tennessee study is almost identical to national research studies that also find that only 5 percent of beverage containers sold are consumed in cars and only one-in-164 is littered. Why begin such a massive program to address such a limited segment of the litter stream? 3.6 Requires a New Government Bureaucracy Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter 4 of 6

Bottle Bill(Neg) Matthew Hamilton, Eveready ___________________________________________________________________________________ Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf Forced deposit programs require new government bureaucracy – including dozens of new state employees – to collect your money, regulate and subsidize redemption centers and pay out refunds. We do not need a bigger government to clean up litter. 3.7 Would Send More TN Shoppers Across the Border Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf Tennessee’s already high sales tax rate already pushes shoppers across our 11 border neighbors for groceries – and the bottle bill will accelerate that flow. Adding 8 cents at the checkout line for beverage containers – essentially doubling the sales tax on those items -- would send more shoppers for the border and cost Tennessee millions in local and state sales tax receipts. 3.8 Easy Fraud Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf Deposit programs are notorious for fraud that costs states millions. Residents from neighboring states will be able to redeem their containers in Tennessee and receive a refund. This fraud activity is almost impossible to police. (Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2006.) Iowa, which collects a nickel from consumers, is proposing to reduce refunds to 4 cents to cover fraud expense to the program 3.9 Example of Curbside Litter Initiative Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf In calling for an end to Massachusetts’ program in a March 2006 article in the Boston Globe magazine, a former Boston city councilman says that state pays $1,000 a ton to recover containers that have a value well below $100 a ton. He writes that Massachusetts should join the rest of nation and invest in curbside programs that are more efficient. “Bad laws,” he writes, “once in place, are hard to get rid of.” (Thomas M. Keane, Jr., Boston Globe magazine, March 5, 2006.) 3.10 Redemption Creates Trash and Sanitation Problems Jarron Springer(Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association), Emily LeRoy(Tennessee Oil Marketers Association), “Proposed Bottle ‘Tax’ Bureaucracy Drives Up Consumer Costs, Trashes Litter 5 of 6

Bottle Bill(Neg) Matthew Hamilton, Eveready ___________________________________________________________________________________ Programs “, February 4, 2008, http://www.trashthebottlebill.com/pdf/Press_Release.pdf “People want to do the right thing, and using our existing curbside or dropoff recycling programs is less hassle and a lot less costly than this proposed bottle bill idea,” said Emily LeRoy of TOMA. “We are also concerned that taking back empty containers in their stores not only means more cost to convenience store owners, but also means bringing trash and sanitation problems into food stores – and that’s a bad combination.”

4. Managing People
3.1 Our Culture and Recycle Bins Miguel Llanos(reporter), “Plastic bottles pile up as mountains of waste”, msnbc, March 5, 2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279230/ And what about a low-tech approach of just educating the public to assume more responsibility, taking those plastic bottles home to a recycling bin instead of leaving them in a trash bin at a park? "It's unrealistic to think people are going to do that," Franklin says. "In this culture it just doesn't seem to happen." 3.2 We Can't Manage Everything Ladelle, Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies Department of Philosophy University of Richmond, Heidegger and the Earth, p.6 The danger of a managerial approach to the world lies not, then, in what it knows—not its penetration into the secrets of galactic emergence or nuclear fission—but in what it forgets, what it itself conceals. It forgets that any other truths are possible, and it forgets that the belonging together of revealing with concealing is forever beyond the power of human management. We can never have, or know, it all; we can never manage everything.

6 of 6