Recycling Battle Is Brewing as Key Provisions to Expire
California’s decade-old “bottle bill” has drawn praise from across the nation as a model method for encouraging recycling.
The state collects $340 million annually from beverage makers and the beverage container industry, then uses the money to pay for consumers’ returns, to subsidize nearly 1,200 recycling centers and curbside recycling programs, and to fund the California Conservation Corps, which picks up litter statewide.
But in 1998, key provisions of the Beverage Container Recycling Law, as it’s formally known, will expire. A major battle is brewing between those who want to see the law maintained and bottlers, beer companies and soft drink manufacturers who say they bear a disproportionate share of the recycling costs because they generate only 2% of the state’s total waste.
The crux of the problem from the industry perspective is the fee levied by the state to cover the difference between the cost of recycling a container and its scrap value. The container and beverage industries subsidize the recycling of glass, plastic and steel containers. (Aluminum cans aren’t an issue because they have a high scrap value and a high recycling rate--80% were recycled in 1996.)
For example, on a plastic two-liter bottle popular with soft drink manufacturers, the state can add 3 cents to 8 cents to the 16-cent cost of producing the container.
Thus, the soft drink industry in particular is eager to let the bottle bill provisions lapse because of its widespread use of plastic containers.
“The cost to our industry--especially in terms of plastic--is $20 [million] to $30 million a year,” said Bob Ackerman, director of the California Nevada Soft Drink Assn. “Soft drink and beer containers subsidize the state’s curbside recycling program. Where’s everybody else?”
When the Legislature gets back to work Jan. 5, the industry will push for what it’s calling a “goal-oriented” recycling program in which the state would set a target percentage for each material to be recycled and would penalize the industry with a fine for each percentage point not met.
Gov. Pete Wilson has already endorsed the industry notion that the law needs a major revision. But recycling proponents, allied with local governments that face increasingly stringent state-mandated thresholds for waste reduction, believe the bottle bill works just fine. In fact, many believe it should be extended to new categories of beverages and food containers.
The city of Los Angeles, which helps to finance its curbside recycling program with state subsidies, is backing expansion of the bottle bill. Though a measure stalled in the last legislative session, the city is eager to back renewed legislation next year, its lobbyist Lisa McFadden said.
“There simply is no chance of dismantling this program,” said Mark Murray of the 20,000-member Californians Against Waste, which sponsored the most recent expansion effort.
HOT BILLS
* Credit Card Information
Bottom line: This bill, opposed by bankers, creditors and direct marketing firms, would require credit card companies to get written permission from cardholders before selling information about their spending habits to marketing firms.
Chances: AB 1435 passed the Assembly on a 47-27 vote last April, but Republican opposition was likely to invite a veto from Wilson. Supporters wanted to buy more time to negotiate a compromise with American Express, Visa and the banking industry.
Next step: The bill faces a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee when the Legislature returns in January.
Details: AB 1435 author Assemblyman Mike Machado (D-Stockton) can be reached at (916) 445-7931.
