FACTS WE’RE SAYING NO TO QUESTION 2. HERE’S WHY: THE - TopicsExpress



          

FACTS WE’RE SAYING NO TO QUESTION 2. HERE’S WHY: THE BOTTLE DEPOSIT LAW IS AN OLD IDEA. While forced deposit systems may have been needed 30 years ago, more than 90% of Commonwealth residents now have access to curbside and other community recycling programs. These are the recycling methods most Massachusetts residents prefer. By investing in these programs that are designed to handle all recyclable materials, Massachusetts can be a leader in recycling. QUESTION 2 WILL BE EXPENSIVE. We already pay for curbside recycling. Per ton, forced deposit systems are three times more expensive to operate than curbside programs. Question 2 would broaden those deposits, costing almost $60 million a year to collect and handle the new containers. On top of that, every five years the deposit amount we pay would automatically increase. If the state directed that $60 million dollars to expanding curbside recycling, it would be enough to provide every single-family household in the state with curbside recycling service. QUESTION 2 IS NOT ALL IT’S CRACKED UP TO BE. Beginning in the late 1980s, the bottle deposit law included an environmental fund for unclaimed deposits. The legislature saw an opportunity and raided the fund. Now instead of helping the environment, unclaimed deposits go directly to the state’s general fund. The same could be true under Question 2. MORE GOOD REASONS TO VOTE NO ON QUESTION 2: Because forced deposit systems are so inconvenient, many Massachusetts residents recycle their bottles and cans at the curb, rather than deal with the hassle. Question 2 would impose a higher handling fee, increasing prices on soda, juices, sports drinks, teas, water, and beer. Question 2 would increase the recycling rate by less than 1%, while costing Massachusetts tens of millions of dollars. In addition to placing a 5¢ deposit on more items, Question 2 includes a provision that increases the nickel deposits we currently pay on products every five years without a vote by the people. That means Question 2 would cost much more in the years to come.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 23:48:03 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015