Nickel's worth

Container deposits work. Let's sic 'em on the growing pile of plastic water bottles.

Expanding the Massachusetts bottle-deposit law beyond carbonated drinks makes sense for the environment and for jobs in the expanding recyclables market.

The impetus for a change? Bottled water. Noncarbonated bottled water is the fastest growing segment of the U.S. beverage market, and a new source of valuable recycled polyethylene plastic, called PETE or PET in the trade.

There are other voluntary recycling schemes being promoted, but the Environmental Protection Agency and recycling activists agree the deposit system has proven itself as the most effective way of putting used bottles back into a recovery stream. When the product was just soft drink and beer bottles, bottle-bill states achieved up to an 80 percent recovery rate (our Massachusetts rate on eligible containers is about 70 percent).

The reason should be obvious: When people have an economic incentive (even a nickel or dime), the "invisible hand" that 19th-century economist Adam Smith described guides their actions toward a public good.

The good is less litter, some energy savings from using old plastic instead of cooking up new, and a consistent flow of clean recyclable material to help fuel an expanding market for new products.

The coming of the ubiquitous spring water bottle has lowered the plastic-recycling percentages. Only California, Hawaii and Maine now include them in deposit programs. And because they are often consumed on the run, fewer water bottles wind up at home to be delivered to the voluntary recycling bins at the local landfill (buyers prefer those Dumpsters full of clean, sorted plastic, as opposed to what might be plucked off the conveyor belt at the SEMASS incinerator).

The result has been a seven-year drop in the PET recycling rate, from 22.1 percent in 2001 to 19.9 percent in 2002. In 1995, before most of the bottled-water boom, the PET recycling rate was almost 40 percent. The actual poundage has dropped, too, which may be because of market jitters.

Expanding the program to water or juice bottles makes particular sense because the type of polyethylene is the same as soft drink bottles and has the most utility and value in recycled materials, from new bottles to polyester carpeting, "fiberfill" clothing and luggage.

The former Romney administration had an expanded bottle bill in its fiscal 2005 budget. When it comes before the Legislature, expect the beverage and grocery industries to oppose it, as they have every other deposit law.

Coca Cola and Pepsi own the bottled water brands Dasani and Aquafina, respectively. They would prefer that the job of recycling their growing mound of discarded product be paid for through taxes on everyone, and accomplished by town employees and good-hearted volunteers.

The irony is that a basic free market tool - the lowly nickel - has already proven to be the most effective way to move empty bottles along the line to re-use.

(Published: March 30, 2004)