New York State\u2019s bottle deposit law, also known as the Bottle Bill, has been around for so long, it\u2019s hard to imagine it remains controversial. You buy certain containers, you place a nickel deposit, return it, and get the nickel back. Less junk for the landfill, more recycling of wastes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s worked that way for nearly four decades, and it\u2019s been extremely successful. Over its 40-year history, New York\u2019s Bottle Bill has proven highly effective at reducing litter and increasing recycling rates. In 2020, nearly two-thirds of all covered containers were redeemed by New York consumers. The Bottle Bill has reduced roadside container litter by 70%, and in 2020, 5.5 billion<\/em> containers were recycled in the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When it first passed in 1982, the Legislature articulated its policy goals stating that \u201crequiring a deposit on all beverage containers, along with certain other facilitating measures, will provide a necessary incentive for the economically efficient and environmentally benign collection and recycling of such containers.\u201d And those policies have been realized and the law has created thousands of jobs for those collecting and recycling the containers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What doesn\u2019t make sense is how the state determines which containers are covered by the deposit and which ones are not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the addition of wine coolers (remember them?) and water bottles a decade ago, the basic coverage of the law remains in place. The nickel deposit enacted in 1982 is still a nickel and the containers that are covered is still a short list \u2013 with many containers left outside the scope of the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Think about America circa 1982. Global warming was a topic limited to scientists, the Internet was a military application, \u201cPhysical\u201d by Olivia Newton-John topped the music charts, disco was still on the dance floors. Ronald Reagan was halfway into his first term as President. And Hugh Carey was New York\u2019s Governor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since that time, the world has changed in so many ways, but not the basic architecture of the Bottle Law. While some new containers have been added to the beer and soda containers that were originally covered in 1982 (most notably water bottles), the deposit is still a nickel, and many popular beverages \u2013 some of which that did not exist forty years ago \u2013 are not covered. For example, sports drinks and other plastic containers that clog our parks and streets are not covered. There are some old products outside the scope of the law too \u2013 while wine coolers are in, wine bottles are out. How does that make sense?<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s time for the Bottle Law of the late 20th Century to join the 21st.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last week, over 100 environmental and community organizations sent a letter to Governor Hochul urging her to use next year\u2019s Bottle Bill 40th<\/sup> anniversary to modernize the law. Other states have improved their laws \u2013 Connecticut just made major improvements this year. Thus, a blueprint for improvements exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In their letter to the governor, the groups identified two major changes to the law that should be considered:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The groups argued that modernizing the Bottle Bill will reduce litter, increase recycling rates, reduce carbon emissions, and bring thousands of additional jobs to New York. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 40 years is a long time. Modernizing the Bottle Bill is an important way for Governor Hochul to move the state forward in its efforts to reduce waste and to enhance recycling. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" New York State\u2019s bottle deposit law, also known as the Bottle Bill, has been around for so long, it\u2019s hard to imagine it remains controversial. You buy certain containers, you place a nickel deposit, return it, and get the nickel back. Less junk for the landfill, more recycling of wastes. It\u2019s worked that way for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2642"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2642\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2648,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2642\/revisions\/2648"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}