Environment: The Battle of the Bottle

In Boston, a new law requires returnable soft drink containers

Revolted by a steadily increasing torrent of trash, Massachusetts environmentalists have lobbied for years to get a bill on the books requiring returnable beverage cans and bottles. Back in 1979, the first time they succeeded in getting a bill through the state legislature, Governor Edward King vetoed it. When the measure was passed again last September, King cast a second veto. But this time the state house of representatives overrode the veto. And last week the Massachusetts senate voted 29 to 10 to override the Governor too.

The new law, which will take effect in January 1983, is similar to those already on the books in Oregon (1972), Vermont (1973), Maine (1978), Michigan (1979), Iowa (1979), Connecticut (1980) and scheduled next summer for the state of Delaware. Consumers in Massachusetts will be required to pay a deposit of 50 on any beer or soda container holding less than 32 oz. and 100 on containers holding 32 oz. or more. Retailers have to pay full refunds on containers brought back to them within 60 days after purchase. But they in turn get back the deposit—plus a handling fee of 10 per container—when they return the returnables to wholesalers, distributors and bottlers.

Some bitter opponents of the Massachusetts bill, who had charged that the measure would eliminate jobs and increase the price of beverages, have moved quickly to make the best of a bad situation. Bruce Wright, president of the Massachusetts Wholesalers of Malt Beverages Inc., still claims that the new law will be costly to retailers and difficult to implement; nonetheless, he has already called on the association’s members to comply. But last week the Massachusetts Beverage Industry and Labor Committee announced a drive to collect the 29,434 signatures necessary to get a referendum repealing the bill on next November’s ballot. Their chance of success may be slight. When opponents of Maine’s law managed to get a referendum on the ballot in 1979, the voters snowed them under by a vote of 226,076 to 41,802.

And why not? Despite dire predictions, the experience of the states that have enacted them shows clearly that bottle bills work. Oregon, though it never has had a serious litter problem, is now virtually free of beverage litter. Vermont highway officials reckon that roadside container rubbish has been cut down by 76%. Litter has been reduced by 90% in Michigan’s heavily used state parks, according to officials. But in some of its industrial areas the cleanup has cost hundreds of lost jobs in bottle factories and millions in lost tax revenues from bottle sales.

The Iowa department of transportation estimates that in one year their law cut the volume of container trash by 64%. Connecticut officials are just as enthusiastic. “It’s wonderful,” said Rocky Neck State Park Manager Albert Millane. “Normally this time of year, we’d find thousands and thousands of bottles after the weekends. Now, if we find 20 bottles a day, we’re lucky.” Maine officials estimate that they have saved $100,000 a year in cleanup costs since their law took effect. Other states report similar savings.

In Maryland, however, a ten-year battle has produced nothing but deadlock. Every time environmentalists offer a bottle bill, the opponents counter with a rival program. The latest is called the Beverage Industry Recycling Program—or BIRP—an educational plan to stimulate “voluntary” public cooperation. Voters in Ohio rejected a bottle bill in 1979 by an overwhelming 70% to 30%. Earlier this year, in the New York State legislature, a similar bill was nibbled to death by bottling company and labor lobbyists before it even got to the floor for a vote.

That kind of organized opposition seems likely to spread as pro-environmentalist Senators and Congressmen prepare to push for a national bottle bill. The AFL-CIO, which has regularly opposed state bottle bills, claims that a national law could eliminate up to 80,000 jobs, mostly in bottle factories.

Bottle-bill backers counter these arguments by citing a General Accounting Office study suggesting that a national bill would create at least as many jobs trucking and sorting bottles as they eliminate.

Returnable containers encourage the habit of saving, rather than waste. They have also already proved profitable, especially to citizens willing to pick up roadside litter and drag it to a nearby recycling station. Churches and schools now raise funds by organizing collection drives. So do individuals. Arthur Bush, 12, of Portland, Me., makes anywhere from $3 to $7 each time he devotes a few hours to rummaging for returnables in trash cans and parking lots; Adalbert (“Al”) Politz, 56, of Bloomfield, Conn., made enough sorting through nearby Hartford’s refuse last year to buy his son a Christmas present and give a handicapped friend $60 worth of knitting yarn. The Miller family of Portland, Ore., has found bottle collecting even more profitable. Foraging for Coke bottles along a state highway last February, they found 149 crisp $100 bills scattered by the road. When no one laid claim to the cash after six months, it was Miller time to the tune of $14,900.

—By Peter Stoler. Reported by Joelle Attinger/Boston and Gary Lee/Washington