{"id":3176,"date":"2025-04-28T07:27:49","date_gmt":"2025-04-28T11:27:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/?p=3176"},"modified":"2025-04-28T07:27:49","modified_gmt":"2025-04-28T11:27:49","slug":"albanys-trash-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/albanys-trash-problem\/","title":{"rendered":"Albany\u2019s Trash Problem"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Governor Hochul and state lawmakers are reportedly<\/a> finally moving towards finalizing a state budget. Once that work is complete, the Legislature\u2019s attention will be debating \u201cnon-budget\u201d bills between now and the scheduled end of the session<\/a> on June 12th<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of those issues should be what to do about New York\u2019s mounting trash crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According<\/a> to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Americans now generate twice as much waste as they did 50 years ago. What to do with the trash that we all produce? Right now, the number<\/a> one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for disposal; number three is burning; and the last is to be recycled. There is no evidence that the problem is getting better. In fact, the state\u2019s residential recycling rate has been dropping<\/a> over the past decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The state\u2019s capacity to tackle this problem is dwindling. Again according<\/a> to the DEC, \u201cNew York\u2019s 25 municipal solid waste landfills have a combined landfill capacity of between 16 and 25 years.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the state\u2019s landfills are filled to capacity in a decade or so, what will happen? At the end of 2023, the state Department of Environmental Conservation issued its \u201cNew York State Solid Waste Management Plan<\/a>\u201d to tackle that emerging problem. Among its recommendations, the DEC highlighted the need for a \u201cproducer responsibility\u201d approach and urged action to, among other things, expand the state\u2019s bottle deposit law and reduce packaging wastes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those two legislative proposals are actively under consideration in Albany.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act<\/a> (PRRIA) legislation will reduce plastic packaging to dramatically reduce waste, as well as phase out some of the most toxic chemicals used in packaging; improve recyclability of packaging; and slash greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastic. It will also make polluters pay by establishing a modest fee on packaging paid by packaging producers, generating new revenue to help defray waste costs for local taxpayers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result it will save taxpayers money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A new report from Beyond Plastics<\/a> estimates that New Yorkers could save around $100 million annually<\/em> if the PRRIA is adopted. The report outlines substantial cost savings, reduced packaging waste, and higher recycling rates from adoption of the bill into law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legislation has also been introduced to expan<\/a>d the Bottle Deposit Law<\/a>. That\u2019s the law that requires a nickel deposit on certain carbonated beverages and bottled water. When you return the container, you get your nickel back. The Bottle Law has been the most successful litter reduction and recycling program in New York history. The DEC describes it as a \u201ctremendous success<\/a>.\u201d When the law kicked in 40 years ago in 1983, carbonated beverage containers were found everywhere; now the overwhelming majority<\/a> of these containers are redeemed under the program. But many beverages \u2013 most notably non-carbonated sports drinks \u2013 didn\u2019t exist four decades ago and are not covered by the law today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expanding the law will also<\/em> save taxpayers money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to a new report<\/a> by the think tank Eunomia<\/a>, the state\u2019s local governments could save as much as $108 million annually<\/em> if lawmakers approved the \u201cBigger Better Bottle Bill,\u201d legislation<\/a> designed to modernize the four-decade-old law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enacting both proposals would not only help municipalities\u2019 bottom lines \u2013 they total $200 million annually<\/em> \u2013 the state would get some new revenue too. According to an analysis<\/a> done earlier this year, New York State could see as much as $100 million in increased revenue if the Bottle Bill legislation is approved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plans to improve the Bottle Bill and establish the PRRIA got a boost last week, when the Siena College Research Institute poll<\/a> found overwhelming public support for requiring packaging manufacturers to be responsible for their products (required under the PRRIA bill) as well as increasing the bottle deposit from a nickel to a dime (it\u2019s been a nickel since 1983) with majorities of New York Democratic, Republican, and Independent voters all supporting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The advocates calling for these measures are trying to turn DEC plans into actions \u2013 actions that must be taken now in order to reduce the state\u2019s trash problem. You only have to look at the worsening climate to see what happens when policymakers don\u2019t act. This year, lawmakers should act and turn those cans and other packaging wastes into cash as well as to make headway combating the growing trash threat.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Governor Hochul and state lawmakers are reportedly finally moving towards finalizing a state budget. Once that work is complete, the Legislature\u2019s attention will be debating \u201cnon-budget\u201d bills between now and the scheduled end of the session on June 12th. One of those issues should be what to do about New York\u2019s mounting trash crisis. According […]<\/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-3176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3176","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=3176"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3176\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3177,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3176\/revisions\/3177"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}