Expand bill to include water bottles

3/11/07

At first glance, it’s hard to get worked up about something known as the Bottle Bill. An annual rite of spring in Hartford, the proposal would double the nickel deposits for soda and beer containers, sending more money back to the state and, presumably, getting litter off our streets and parks. Whether it would actually accomplish much is a legitimate debate, but the idea of expanding the deposit to water bottles and noncarbonated sports drinks is a good one.
Promoters of the bill, which is knocked down annually by lobbyists for the beverage industry — which has no interest in seeing higher prices on its products unless they’re headed back its way — say containers without deposits are recycled about 30 percent of the time, while deposit-friendly bottles and cans are more on the line of 70 percent. If this success could be duplicated on water bottles, iced tea containers and electrolyte-replenishing sports drink holders, potentially thousands of tons of what would otherwise be garbage could be dealt with hygienically. Less litter is a good thing.
As far as the increase up to a dime for soda and beer, supporters, led by state Sen. Bill Finch of Bridgeport, say everyone would benefit. The industry would still get the unredeemed deposits from soda and beer cans, and the state would split the proceeds from water and other drinks among various environmental programs.
It sounds good, but what it really amounts to is another tax. More money for the beverage industry, more money for the state, and consumers foot the bill, as usual. Prices never go down on any widely used consumer goods, but average working families are feeling the pinch everywhere, starting with electricity rates, gas prices and, presumably, the income tax. If we’re going to raise taxes and fees, at least be straightforward about it.
But make no mistake, this is the equivalent of a tax increase. Expanding the deposit to water bottles is fine — they are, almost literally, everywhere. That move would solve the much-ballyhooed litter problem. But taxes and prices are up enough. If we’re going to add a nickel-a-bottle environmental-cleanup fee, people ought to be informed. Disguising it as a get-money-back incentive makes about as much sense as offering $500 cash back on a new car. Why don’t they just subtract the $500 to begin with?