Bigger Better Bottle Bill Excluded From New York State Budget
April Warren
Issue date: 5/8/08 Section: News
The Bigger Better Bottle Bill, which would have expanded five-cent refundable deposits on beverage containers to water bottles and other non-carbonated beverages, was not included in the finalized state budget put out on Apr. 9 despite student activists' lobbying efforts.
The campus environmental club and the Stony Brook chapter of the New York Public Interest Research Group, also known as NYPIRG, has been lobbying the state legislature for months by writing 95 letters and hand delivering them to state senator John Flanagan's (D -- Second District) office, hosting rallies and even driving up to Albany to make their voices heard.
The original Bottle Bill, passed in 1982, required five-cent refundable deposits on beer and soda containers sold in New York. The bill did not include non-carbonated beverages because at the time most of them did not exist.
"The bill is sound not only for environmental reason, but for the fact that it will make the state money," said Luke Schordine, a student concentrating in environmental studies.
The defeated bill's extension required beverage distributors to transfer any unclaimed deposits to the State Environmental Protection Fund. Many beverage companies hold onto the unclaimed deposits resulting in an estimated $140 million a year that can not be used to help fund special environmental projects.
"It's not only good for the environment, but it also generates millions of dollars that can be used to help improve the state," said Christian Williams, a NYPIRG intern and student activist.
Bigger Better Bottle Bill opponents include the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo., Anheuser Busch, grocers and even some liquor store owners. The opposition is largely in response to the possibility of higher operating costs if the bill was included in the budget.
"The soft drink industry, along with breweries and grocery retailers, opposes deposit legislation because this kind of legislation is too narrowly focused to effectively address the solid waste problem," according to the Coca-Cola Company's web page. "Furthermore, deposits divert only 3 percent of waste as opposed to comprehensive systems which divert up to 25 percent."
The campus environmental club and the Stony Brook chapter of the New York Public Interest Research Group, also known as NYPIRG, has been lobbying the state legislature for months by writing 95 letters and hand delivering them to state senator John Flanagan's (D -- Second District) office, hosting rallies and even driving up to Albany to make their voices heard.
The original Bottle Bill, passed in 1982, required five-cent refundable deposits on beer and soda containers sold in New York. The bill did not include non-carbonated beverages because at the time most of them did not exist.
"The bill is sound not only for environmental reason, but for the fact that it will make the state money," said Luke Schordine, a student concentrating in environmental studies.
The defeated bill's extension required beverage distributors to transfer any unclaimed deposits to the State Environmental Protection Fund. Many beverage companies hold onto the unclaimed deposits resulting in an estimated $140 million a year that can not be used to help fund special environmental projects.
"It's not only good for the environment, but it also generates millions of dollars that can be used to help improve the state," said Christian Williams, a NYPIRG intern and student activist.
Bigger Better Bottle Bill opponents include the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo., Anheuser Busch, grocers and even some liquor store owners. The opposition is largely in response to the possibility of higher operating costs if the bill was included in the budget.
"The soft drink industry, along with breweries and grocery retailers, opposes deposit legislation because this kind of legislation is too narrowly focused to effectively address the solid waste problem," according to the Coca-Cola Company's web page. "Furthermore, deposits divert only 3 percent of waste as opposed to comprehensive systems which divert up to 25 percent."
Be the first to comment on this story