|
February 10, 2007
Woman heads push to keep state free of litter
By Mannix Porterfield
REGISTER-HERALD REPORTER
CHARLESTON — Vonnie Clay arrived at the Capitol with a curious twist to her
wardrobe.
Atop her head was a straw hat, featuring empty water bottles dangling from it —
her way of calling attention to this year’s attempt to enact a so-called bottle
bill.
“This is a beautiful state and I want to see West Virginia clear of litter,”
explained the Boone County resident and secretary for Delegate Richard Iaquinta,
D-Harrison.
“I think it will bring more tourism dollars if we can clean up the litter. Half
of what I pick up — and I’m one of those people who pick up litter by the side
of the road — is cans and bottles. I want to see that eliminated with a deposit
on the bottle bill.”
In less colorful fashion, Michael McCray arrived in town from Augusta, Maine,
representing Strategic Materials, to promote the beverage container proposal, a
leading item on the agenda of the West Virginia Citizen Action Group.
With 31 facilities across this country and Canada, the firm is the largest glass
processor in North America.
“We crush, grind and process glass materials for bottle-to-bottle recycling to
make new bottles,” McCray said.
Maine enacted its bottle law about three decades ago. Two years later, voters
overwhelmingly agreed to keep it on the books. In 1991, it was expanded to
include teas, coffees and water — about the time such designer drinks came in
vogue.
West Virginia is considering a law that would impose a redeemable 10-cent
deposit on all containers. Consumers would get their money back on redemption,
and recycling centers would get 3 cents of the tax.
The proposal has come under fire from business concerns that see it as nothing
more than an open-ended tax that will cause border retailers a nightmare in
dealing with containers not actually purchased in West Virginia.
Moreover, opponents contend, the so-called bottle bill would provide only a
small dent in the refuse that winds up alongside highways.
Wine and liquor consumers shell out a 15-cent deposit in Maine, while all other
containers are assessed 5 cents. None of that money fell into government’s hands
at the outset, but the law was amended three years ago so that all unredeemed
deposits go the state, McCray said.
“We have redemption centers that redeem the products,” he said. “The product is
of a finer quality because they’re well sorted and not tainted with trash.”
In turn, the market uses the empty containers to create more revenue, he
explained.
“The whole process in turn does great things for the environment,” he said.
“We have good end markets for the use of the materials. It does create jobs and
it does create additional revenues. The state doesn’t receive any of the
revenues. The financial burden was initially shouldered by the distributors and
manufacturers. Entrepreneurs opened up redemption centers — homegrown businesses
so to speak.”
In West Virginia, bills pending in both houses would lay the burden at the feet
of consumers. But they have the option of getting their deposit back by turning
containers into redemption centers or stores.
“You cannot ride through Maine without making a comment on the lack of litter,
how clean the state is,” McCray said when asked to assess the value of the law.
“It’s an educational process. It doesn’t happen overnight. People fight and
argue over bottle bills when they start out. And nobody wants to do the
additional work.”
In a sense, there is a generational gap at work when such laws are proposed, he
suggested.
“My parents would avoid recycling,” he said. “My kids know no different. It’s a
way of life. What it is, is a change of a mindset. You get people educated about
recycling, doing the right things for their environment.
“Wearing seatbelts is a good analogy. It’s a thought process. Before people
throw that trash container out the window, they think about it. It doesn’t
conveniently happen overnight.”
Linda Frame, program director for Charleston-based WVCAG, is banking on the
House to move first, noting there is concern for the Senate bill since it has
been triple-referenced, meaning three separate committees must take it up.
“We have higher hopes in the House than we do in the Senate,” she said.
— E-mail:
mannix@register-herald.com
|
