Bottle bill questions

[chenoameg]

Please let me know if I'm wrong

Comments

[desireearmfeldt]

That's a good point. I was thinking about it the other way: why should a thing that's supposed to promote recycling be based on the type of beverage rather than the type of container?

[firstfrost]

I think the answer to this is "because it's hard to fight multiple lobbies at the same time", and it's a political answer rather than a how-the-world-should-idealistically-be answer.

[desireearmfeldt]

Er, sorry, what I meant was not "how did this come to be?" but "as a voter, do I think it makes sense to change it, given the option?"

[totient]

This isn't why, but it happens that milk rarely comes in glass bottles (and when it does usually it's a reusable bottle with a larger deposit than 5c), and wine rarely comes in clear bottles, which makes an apple juice bottle more likely than a wine or milk bottle to wind up in hard-to-see pieces in a bike lane and give me a flat tire.

[nuclearpolymer]

I guess it seems like this idea is motivated primarily by (1) reducing litter (2) increasing recycling. Given the differential amount of littering and recycling between soda bottles and water bottles at this time, I believe it is likely to achieve these goals

[chenoameg]

It seems like to reduce litter making every beverage less than 29 ounces have a deposit (whether in tetra pak or plastic) would be more effective.

[kelkyag]

In places with potable tap water (which I think is all of Massachusetts -- please correct me if I am wrong), I tend to consider all beverages other than tap water to be luxuries to begin with. That I can think of off-hand, the only other beverages that are nutritionally more meaningful than sugar water are milk and yogurt beverages, and (some) beers (and probably other simple fermented drinks, for the B vitamins).

That said, the social consequences of small luxuries being less affordable is real. The first time I chewed on that that was reading a British study/paper on the costs of a sufficient diet that took a long diversion into the price and social aspects of tea.

[chenoameg]

I think WIC still considers fruit juice to be nutritionally worth it. Certainly it is a cheaper form of vitamin C than fresh fruit.

[kelkyag]

it is a cheaper form of vitamin C than fresh fruit
That surprises me, unless it is fortified, or unless it is being sold as concentrate -- liquid is a pain to ship. It's easier to store for off-season, though. Huh. I'll have to poke at that.

Certainly (sadly) I'd believe there are more little kids willing to drink juice than to eat fresh fruit.

[nuclearpolymer]

Frozen fruit juice where you add water used to be cheaper than the kind in plastic bottles. I haven't checked lately, but I assume the frozen form factor is still both cheaper and easier to carry home if you do not have a car. You would need a freezer to store them, though.

But yeah, I do agree that even if people can choose frozen or wax paper packaged juice, it is true that adding a charge per container will increase prices on some juice options for some people who don't have much money. I acknowledge this is unfair, and that in this case I am valuing an environmental benefit more than the social justice impact. I also think that litter has more of a quality of life impact on poorer neighborhoods who can't pay for lots of street sweeping.

[dcltdw]

Not much to add to what others have mentioned; my thinking is that, to me, it's a good starting point for environmental reasons and can be modified for socioeconomic reasons later, as opposed to being so bad that we should go back to the drawing board.