Could the Bigger Bottle Bill be destined for failure in the State Senate once again? What's with Albany? I thought the change in leadership this January signalled the advancement of a common sense bottle bill for New York.
Well, there was a veiled attempt to dismantle the advanced deposit measure in the sudden push to fully fund the Environmental Protection Fund. Yes, this is how they tried to do it. By slipping in a clause to do just that, while presenting a much sought after pledge to provide the perpetually anaemic department with the necessary funding.
It seems Republican Senator Carl Marcellino, of Long Island, [right] submitted what was initially a well received proposal to provide funding, until other Senators looked a bit more closely. Several Democratic state senators on the Environmental Conservation Committee have refused to sign on. Unless there is some surgical magic and the Trojan Bill Killer is removed, the whole thing could languish in committee.We are all familiar with the diminished funds to cover the budget in Albany, so it comes as no shock that some of our "Green Economy" leaders robbed $50 million from the EPF and placed it in the general budget. And we thought ethics was going to come with the changing tide.
The bottle bill is once again fighting an uphill battle. Even after the chamber was won by Democrats. This is what happens when working with such a slim margin of majority; the legislation gets slippery.
Even though the estimated revenue from unredeemed deposits hovers around $100 Million annually, some environmental advocates are willing to accept the funding shift from the EPF, but support the proposed bottle bill expansion as a source of money for the general fund.
Although Marcellino says this proposal was not set in stone, the committee chair Antoine Thompson of Buffalo [left] and several other members will hold the Bill back until there is enhancement support.If it ever gets to the Senate floor, we will have to push our Senators Bonacic and Larkin to change their minds and vote in favor.
5 comments:
While I understand and agree with the desire to improve recycling efforts and reduce what is dumped into our landfills, I have had a difficult time viewing this as anything other then an additional source of revenue for the state ever since this was first proposed by then Gov. Spitzer.
My feelings are mixed on this and my current level of disgust with the state's efforts to cut spending does not lend me to look favorably at taking more money from the taxpayers and giving it to the state.
When the state can end absurd practices such as some state departments adding six figure jobs to administer spending cuts, I may reconsider.
I support including all types of bottles, like water bottle and non-carbonated beverages.
It's stupid that we recycle and take deposit on soda bottle, but not water bottle.
I don't support the increase to ten cents a bottle.
9:13 The way the law reads now, the bottling companies enjoy the $100 Million in un-returned bottles yearly.
The money Paterson is looking at it the diverted funds from the greedy corporate sector to the programs that educate the public on recycling and the process that actually does it.
Those companies have lobbied the old leadership for decades to resist this shift. For good reason. They'd lose "found" money.
I would gladdly deposit ten cents per bottle, I actually bring them back to the store, so it has no affect on my purchasing habits.
If 12:49 is the type that throws deposit bottles away...then the increase has an impact. I say...start separating your trash like a good soldier. You'll do the tipping fees for Kingston some good.
I'm 12:49, and I'm a business owner.
We are only able to recycle what our customers put in the right bins.
When they throw the bottle in the trash, we don't go dumpster diving to retrive them. That is why I am opposed to the increase price.
I am for including water bottles with the soda bottles because the customers don't really know the difference anyway and we have to pick those out because our bottler will not take them back.
So save your good soldier comment for someone else. We do our part.
Post a Comment