Adding Water and Gatorade to the Bottle Bill

NEWS RELEASE: Oct. 7, 2009

With growing awareness of the trash, waste, and public health problems that come from throwaway containers, a throng of supporters turned up at the State House today to push the Legislature to update the Bottle Bill.

MASSPIRG, the Sierra Club, MassRecycle, Environmental League of MA, League of Women Voters, and the Cities of Boston and Cambridge – as well as other citizen groups, container redemption centers, and Governor Patrick’s environmental agencies were among those who testified in support of the long-needed Bottle Bill Update. Recent media attention on water bottle litter and waste has increased the pressure on the legislature to pass an update to the deposit law to capture more beverage containers that now end up in the trash. The neighboring states of Maine, Connecticut, and New York have already updated their bottle bills in the past year.

The proposed update would extend the container deposits to include “new age” drinks such as non-carbonated beverages, water, iced tea, juice, and sports drinks such as Gatorade. If enacted, approximately $20 million in state revenue would be generated from unclaimed deposits. Further, the update would alleviate financial pressure on cities and towns by reducing their trash and litter collection costs.

“Right now, taxpayers are footing the bill to deal with these non-carbonated containers- whether through curbside collection or litter clean-up,” said Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge), sponsor of the primary bill. “Including them in the Commonwealth's bottle bill makes good fiscal and environmental sense.”

Massachusetts lawmakers are particularly interested in the bill's budgetary implications. Under the proposal, the Clean Environment Fund, a key part of the Bottle Law that was eliminated by former Governor Romney, would be restored. The fund, comprised of the unclaimed deposits, would be made available to once again help with cities’ and towns’ environmental efforts, including maintaining parks, preventing litter, and bolstering recycling programs.

While virtually non-existent in 1983 when the law was enacted, non-carbonated beverages now account for about a third of the total beverage market in Massachusetts. According to Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), the Senate sponsor of the update, “Many of these beverages are sold in single-serve containers and are consumed away from home, so they are less likely to end up in a curbside bin and more likely to be littered.”

A state report of a random sample of litter collected by volunteers at a Charles River cleanup contained a ratio of almost 5 to 1 non-returnable containers to returnable (deposit) containers, and similar results have been found throughout the state. Since the ratio of deposit to non-deposit containers is about 2-to-1, it is over twelve times more likely that a non-deposit container will end up littering our waterways than will a deposit container.

According to Boston Mayor Tom Menino, "The Bottle Bill has been a remarkable recycling success, while reducing the amount of litter on our streets, in our parks and in our neighborhoods. The Legislature should expand the bottle bill to include the full array of bottled beverages, and dedicate that new revenue for community recycling and other environmental services. It's good for our environment, good for our health, and good for our budgets."

“This bill has been bottled up for too long,” said Janet Domenitz, Executive Director of Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG). “MASSPIRG has mounted numerous campaigns to expand the deposit law, but has been outgunned by the beverage and retail industry lobbies time and again. We are optimistic that with the recent public attention on water bottle waste, we can bring the bottle bill up to date this time.”

Other proposed changes to the Massachusetts beverage container deposit law include raising the handling fee that the big distributors pay redemption centers and retailers as compensation for their handling of the returned containers. “We have not had a raise in over 17 years,” said Tony Basile of Eagle Redemption. “We can’t name another industry that’s been barred from keeping up with the increasing costs like gasoline and labor.”

James McCaffrey, Director of the Massachusetts Sierra Club said the updated bill promotes corporate responsibility. “This is an issue of making polluters pay for the mess they’ve created. The bottlers and supermarkets are dumping an increasing amount of single-serving plastic bottles into our environment – and making us pay the bill for their collection and clean-up. The deposit system places the burden squarely on them, where it should be. It’s an issue of fairness.”

“Anyone who came to the hearing would have been 100% convinced that updating the bottle is the right thing to do – for the environment and the economy,” said McCaffrey. “We hope the legislature will move this bill through the process quickly.”

- 30 -

MA Sierra Club Endorses Seven in Boston City Council At-Large Race

BOSTON – In a break with tradition, the MA Sierra Club has endorsed more candidates than can win the four Boston City Council At-Large seats. The Sierra Club endorsed seven candidates, but only four will win seats.

“This is highly unusual for the Sierra Club,” said Sierra Club Political Chair Phil Sego. “The exciting truth is that there is an overabundance of candidates for the at-large seats who are excellent environmentalists and would help usher in a new green era for the city.”

This highly unusual move was prompted by the environmental caliber of the candidates. In addition to having excellent written responses to the Sierra Club’s questionnaire they have all taken serious steps in their personal lives to reduce carbon emissions.

While all had replaced their incandescent bulbs with CFLs, a simple step, most have undertaken weatherization in their homes, actively turn off un-used lights, and focus on alternative transportation.

After asking candidates to fill out questionnaires, speaking with the Sierra Club and extensive independent research, the Sierra Club has endorsed candidates who will further the work of protecting the environment, support better transportation options, reduce global warming emissions, increase recycling and help push Massachusetts forward into the new “Green” economy.

“They all have excellent ideas how to improve Boston’s environmental activities and reduce the city’s overall carbon footprint,” said Sego.

For the Boston At-Large City Council race the Sierra Club is proud to endorse, in alphabetical order:

Felix G. Arroyo
John R. Connolly
Tomas Gonzalez
Tito Jackson
Andrew P. Kenneally
Stephen J. Murphy
Ayanna S. Pressley

The Sierra Club is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization dedicated to the preservation, protection, and exploration of the earth’s natural environment. For a complete listing of Sierra Club political endorsements, please visit www.sierraclubmass.org and click the “politics & issues” link on the left.

MA Sierra Club Announces Municipal Race Endorsees

MA Sierra Club Announces Municipal Race Endorsees
Endorsements in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Watertown, Saugus, Springfield

BOSTON – The Massachusetts Sierra Club announced their list of endorsed candidates for municipal races across the state. After asking candidates to fill out questionnaires, speaking with the Sierra Club and extensive independent research, the Sierra Club has endorsed candidates who will further the work of protecting the environment, support better transportation options, reduce global warming emissions, increase recycling and help push Massachusetts forward into the new “Green” economy.

Announcing their endorsement of environmental leaders the Sierra Club hopes both to promote these legislators visibility with a ‘stamp of approval’ as well as encourage other legislators, to step up their efforts and do even more to protect citizens’ health, safety and the Commonwealth’s natural resources.

“Many of us focus on environmental action at the state or federal level,” said Phil Sego, Chair of the MA Sierra Club Political Committee. “This is, of course, vital, but recent history shows us that municipalities can and do lead the way on many critical environmental actions.”

“Increasingly municipal candidates are speaking more and more knowledgeably about environmental issues in their communities,” said Sego. “This is by no means a complete list of environmentalists running for office in Massachusetts. These are, however, some of the candidates that are leading the way on important issues in this new “green” economy.”

The Sierra Club has endorsed candidates in Cambridge, Watertown, Somerville and Boston. More municipal endorsements are likely in the weeks to come, including endorsements in Springfield and Saugus.

ENDORSED CANDIDATES TO DATE:
(revised 10/1/09)

Boston City Council at Large
Stephen J Murphy
John R Connolly
Ayanna Pressley
Felix Arroyo
Andrew Kenneally
Tito Jackson
Tomas Gonzalez

Boston City Council District 8:
Michael Ross

Boston City Council District 9:
Mark Ciommo

Cambridge City Council
Henrietta Davis
Marjorie Decker (write-in candidate)
Craig Kelley
Sam Seidel
Denise Simmons
Timothy Toomey, Jr.
Minka vanBeuzekom

Saugus Board of Selectmen
Michael Kelleher
Sean Maltais

Somerville Board of Aldermen
Rebekah Gewirtz

Springfield City Council Ward 2
Michael Fenton

Springfield City Council Ward 6
Amaad Rivera

Watertown
Councilor at Large: Susan Falkoff
Council President: Mark Sideris
Councilor District-C: Vincent Piccirilli

The Sierra Club, noted for their high-profile national positions, is also deeply rooted in local, regional, and statewide issues. Their endorsement process includes in-depth research and careful analysis of a questionnaire designed specifically to address local environmental issues. The Club’s endorsement is then communicated to its members, which currently number greater than 25,000 statewide.

The Sierra Club is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization dedicated to the preservation, protection, and exploration of the earth’s natural environment. For a complete listing of Sierra Club political endorsements, please visit http://www.sierraclubmass.org/ and click the “politics & issues” link on the left.

Setting the Record Straight on Russell and Biomass

by James McCaffrey, Director, Massachusetts Sierra Club

Appeared in the Country Journal, April 30, 2009

Last week’s Country Journal included a quote from Russell Biomass spokesman John Bos, implying the Sierra Club supports biomass whole-tree harvesting (a potential source of fuel for the Russell plant) and perhaps even the proposed Russell plant itself. We support neither. While we believe that some biomass can be sustainable, many biomass projects are not, including the Russell plant whose own data shows it will emit 1.5 times as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated as the worst carbon dioxide emitting power plant in the Northeast.

Biomass has been defined as organic matter used to generate energy – everything from whole trees to animal waste to construction debris. Most biomass facilities use combustion to release energy. They burn materials. Certain forms of biomass, particularly those with very short growth cycles, can theoretically be “carbon neutral” (a net carbon release of zero) over time.

One operative word here is “time” – something that we don’t have much of if we are to solve the global climate crisis. Consensus in the scientific community calls for a reduction in C02 emissions of at least 2 to 3 percent per year. Those goals are extremely hard to reach. A net increase in CO2 now from plants such as Russell is therefore not part of the solution, it’s part of the problem.

The other operative word is “theoretically”. Most data suggesting biomass is carbon neutral ignores externalities like energy needed for harvesting, processing, and transporting fuel. Unsustainable land use practices may release soil carbon. Accelerated and poorly-managed harvesting of forests and crops and the conversion of natural ecosystems to fuel farms can increase global warming and degrade the environment.

What about the other bad impacts when you burn things for energy? Construction and demolition materials can result in an airborne toxic stew of lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic and dioxins. While Russell says it will not burn such debris, other proposed biomass plants like Palmer would depend on it. Poorly designed water use – like that proposed at Russell- can negatively impact water quality. Carbon neutral or not, suddenly biomass doesn’t look so friendly.

So let’s set the record straight. The Sierra Club does not dispute the science that some forms of biomass have the potential to be carbon neutral over time. But to imply we support the destruction of living forests to generate energy is wrong. We oppose all biomass energy generation processes which contribute to the destruction of existing forests, jeopardize fully functioning forest ecosystems, or rely upon ecologically destructive clear-cutting and in-wood chipping. We are not confident that massive new biomass energy resources, such as those that will be required by the four plants proposed in MA, are available without risking soil and forest health.

In the end it’s really quite simple. Except for very rare instances, burning materials for energy, be it trees or trash, is just not that good for us or our planet. Russell Biomass intends on burning a whole lot of materials… mostly trees. Can’t we do better to create a renewable energy future?

###

Despite "Green" Claims, Incinerator Industry Just Blowing Smoke

New Report: Organizations Oppose State’s Consideration of Lifting Trash-burning Moratorium

Boston, MA – Seven national and local advocacy groups released a report today, An Industry Blowing Smoke: 10 Reasons Why Gasification, Pyrolysis & Plasma Incineration are Not “Green Solutions” revealing that new incineration technologies are no better than conventional trash-burning. The report cites consultant reviews, government studies and scientific literature to conclude that despite recent industry claims of technological breakthroughs, the core impacts of all types of incinerators remain the same: they are toxic to public health, harmful to the economy, environment and climate, and undermine recycling and waste reduction programs. The report spotlights Massachusetts, referring repeatedly to a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recommending against the construction of new incinerators in the state.

“This report debunks every claim made by the waste industry. Solid science still demonstrates that emissions from incinerators are harmful to public health. This is a dinosaur technology that should be retired, not renewed,” said Sylvia Broude, Lead Organizer for Toxics Action Center, a contributor to the report and one of the founding organizations of the alliance, ‘Don’t Waste Massachusetts.’ The alliance includes more than 25 groups as of press time, and continues to expand as awareness of the threat of more incineration grows..

Lifting a 19-year old moratorium on new incineration capacity in Massachusetts is under consideration as the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) drafts the Solid Waste Master Plan (SWMP) for the next decade. The SWMP is the state’s blueprint for dealing with waste. Battle lines are being drawn between waste industry representatives such as Covanta and Casella who want to manage waste largely through burning and newer incineration technologies, and a growing alliance of civic, public health and environmental groups who are asking the DEP to make a serious and comprehensive commitment to reducing waste. The waste industry is misleadingly marketing a new generation of incinerator technologies as “green” technologies. This new report debunks industry efforts to greenwash gasification, pyrolysis and plasma incineration, pointing to more sensible directions that should be considered by decision-makers.

Although the incinerator industry claims that toxic emissions are a problem of the past, An Industry Blowing Smoke contends that new incineration technologies produce the same harmful toxic releases as traditional trash-burners. In the United States, trash incineration is the leading source of dioxin, a carcinogen and one of the most toxic classes of chemicals known to humans. “Creating a ‘landfill in the sky’ by burning trash is no solution to our problem of too much garbage,” said Richard Clapp, Professor of Environmental Health at the Boston University School for Public Health. In addition to toxic emissions, the report says that newer incineration technologies are unproven, risky investments and notes a history of malfunctions, explosions and shut-downs.

Environmental and public health advocates in Massachusetts also argue that incineration competes directly with recycling. Recycling in Massachusetts has declined in recent years to 33%, and the state came nowhere near its own goals for recycling and waste reduction in the 2000-2010 master plan.

“You can’t deal with being overweight by loosening your belt,” said Janet Domenitz, Executive Director of MASSPIRG, another alliance organization. “We have never mastered the basic ‘reduce/reuse/recycle’ mandate so we keep producing more garbage and throwing it away. Meanwhile, there are other cities, states, and even countries that are on a trajectory towards ‘zero waste’ and we should be looking that way instead of at smokestacks.”

In a time when both the public and private sectors are focused on fighting global warming, trash companies falsely claim that burning garbage is the solution to both the waste and energy crises. Not so, says Lynne Pledger of Clean Water Action and the Sierra Club Zero Waste Committee, a contributor to the report. “Incinerators emit more carbon dioxide than even coal-burning power plants, and only one-fifth of the energy in trash is captured by incinerators.”

In fact the DEP’s own study recommended recycling as the best way to save energy when it comes to managing waste. The state commissioned the Tellus Institute last fall to examine the feasibility of new incineration technologies, and they were unable to find any benefit for allowing new incinerators into the state. The Tellus report states, “locking in the use of waste for energy production may forestall potential additional recycling or composting in the future, something the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan has heretofore explicitly avoided.”

Still, the incinerator moratorium is on the table and DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt has said that anything is possible with the next master plan. Don’t Waste Massachusetts has vowed to fight any burning plans, and they are gaining support throughout the state. “In Massachusetts we already incinerate 34% of our municipal solid waste, a huge amount when compared to other states," commented Representative Mark Falzone of Saugus. "Incineration, and these so-called green alternatives, hamper the ability of our recycling industry to expand by competing for the same raw materials, stifling a valuable and job creating industry for the Commonwealth. I commend all of these organizations for their efforts on this report, and hope that the information provided here will be given the attention that it deserves.”

Links to the report can be found at www.toxicsaction.org and www.no-burn.org.

###

Rep Jason Lewis: Let's clean up the commonwealth (op-ed)

By Rep. Jason Lewis/View from the Hill
Appeared in the Stoneham Sun
Thursday, April 23, 2009

Stoneham - This week on Wednesday, April 22, we are celebrating the 39th anniversary of Earth Day. Let’s use this opportunity to rally support for something relatively simple and easy that we can do right here in Massachusetts to help our environment. It’s time to update the Bottle Bill.

The Bottle Bill is the state’s most successful recycling and litter prevention program. Originally passed in 1982, it has been extraordinarily effective at preventing beer and soda cans and glass bottles from being thrown along roadsides, beaches, forest trails and everywhere else people drink beverages away from home. More than 30 billion containers have been redeemed and recycled.

But times have changed, and our laws should change as well. Changes in consumer preferences in the last 25 years mean that many beverages purchased today are not covered by the Bottle Bill. When the law was passed, just about the only other drinks available were small cans of pineapple and tomato juice which needed to be opened at home with a can opener. No one could have imagined the future popularity of bottled water, juices, sports drinks and similar new products. Such beverages now account for 28 percent of individual-use bottles sold.

Of the containers covered by the Bottle Bill, 80 percent are redeemed or recycled. Conversely, only 20 percent of the containers not covered by the Bottle Bill are recycled. Most end up clogging landfills and discarded in our environment each year.

A bill has been filed in the Massachusetts Legislature to update and expand the Bottle Bill. Known as “An Act to Improve Recycling Rates in the Commonwealth” this bill would update the definition of covered beverages to include bottled water, sports drinks, iced tea, juice drinks and other “new age” beverages. It would also increase the handling fee that redemption centers receive since they have not had a rate increase in over 16 years, and it would reestablish the Clean Environment Fund to help our communities increase their recycling rates. I have co-sponsored this bill.

If passed, this bill would yield a number of significant benefits, including:

· Increasing the recycling rate for covered beverage containers from 20 to 80 percent
· Decreasing landfill use
· Decreasing litter
· Saving energy since most of these containers are made of PET, which is 99 percent petroleum
· Creating jobs in the recycling sector
· Raising $15-$20 million in additional funds from uncollected bottle deposits, which can be spent to further improve our environment.

Why shouldn’t we just expand curbside and other recycling efforts? Because it has been proven that bottle bills across the country result in dramatically higher rates of beverage container recycling than curbside recycling alone. Many beverages are consumed away from home, and few people are dedicated enough to recycling to carry their used containers home with them. Most people just throw them away. The financial incentive ensures that most of these containers will get redeemed and recycled.

Although there are many good reasons to update the Bottle Bill, there are determined opponents who have successfully blocked similar attempts in past years. The opponents consist primarily of beverage manufacturers, distributors and retailers who are concerned about reduced profits and the inconvenience of processing returned containers.

Public support, however, is overwhelming with 83 percent in favor of expanding the Bottle Bill according to a 2003 study by the Center for Policy Alternatives. Let’s celebrate Earth Day this year by committing ourselves to finally updating the Bottle Bill.

I welcome your feedback on the Bottle Bill or any other issues. Please visit our Web site at www.RepJasonLewis.com You can also reach me at 617-722-2060 or by e-mail at Jason.Lewis@state.ma.us.

Author’s Note: This column was co-authored with Ken Pruitt, managing director of the Environmental League of Massachusetts and a Stoneham resident. Dylan Cohn provided research assistance.

Rep. Jason Lewis represents the town of Winchester and precincts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Stoneham.