That's because these alleged politicians -- actually, right wingnuts -- are too busy winning to comprehend anything except their ego, power, lying, promoting democracy's decay and defending their right to racism, bigotry, violence, incendiary words, etc... They can't even spell Confucius and probably think the guy is another illegal immigrant that should be beaten and deported.
Republicans are supposed to be pro small business. Democrats were supposed to be an environmentally sensitive. Why can’t the two parties come together on a very small issue that will save some small businesses, help the environment and cost essentially nothing to the individual consumer.
Good question. Since there is no obvious obstacle to getting this done, I have to wonder whether it’s the money from the huge beverage companies that is persuading legislators to do nothing.
Seems likely it is the lobbying of the beverage companies, AND the “free” money from unclaimed deposits, AND legislative inertia - lack of spine or willingness to do work, AND the fact that few of the people most affected donate to politicians or vote.
Jade’s business is located in a lower income section of Queensbury and the people there value their nickels.
While mowing one day a woman with a small child walking and one in a stroller were picking up cans in the ditch out front. She motioned to me and I shut off the mower so I could hear. She asked me if it was okay to take the cans from my ditch. I asked if she was taking them to MT Returnables and she said she was.
It’s about a mile to Jade’s from my place. I was stunned.
The few nickels she could collect clearly made a difference in her life.
What happens to her and others if MT Returnables closes?
You already know the answer to that. The last year specifics records are available was 2010. In 2010, the beverage industry group spend $13 million lobbying the NYS legislature. It takes no conspiracy theorist to surmise that number is much larger in 2025.
The state has made nearly $2 billion off the unclaimed fund since they diverted 80% of the money to themselves. Commissioners in 1985 warned that the state should NOT get their hands on this money, as it was intended to sustain the system.
Well, that warning was ignored and now the the state is getting that money and not using a single penny of it to sustain the system, the system is collapsing.
New York is on the verge of being the very first state to cause this system to fail. Hope our legislators are proud.
Previous news articles about and "lobbying" by Jade Eddy note a bill boosting the returnable deposit money earned by the independent businesses stall in state legislative committees, then conveniently expire at the end of legislative sessions. And the fault lies with majority Dems in state Assembly and Senate, who have veto-proof numbers in the event the Dem governor vetoed the bills. If they are receiving bribes, er, I mean, campaign donations from the beverage industry, it should be listed in their financial reports. But who has the time and expertise to filter through all that publicly available data? Even if someone reviewed just our local state reps, maybe that would indicate who is actually bought and paid for by the bills' opponents.
Republicans are generally pro-big business. Democrats like to brand themselves pro-small business and pro-consumer but are the misleaders are owned by big corporations like the Republicans are. It seems like a small issue to most, except to Pepsi, Coke and their distributors. That's who've bought Assembly Democrat power brokers.
I believe Jade even has a food pantry at her business for anyone to patronize, even if people aren't bringing in returnable bottles/cans/plastic. If this were Utopia, everyone would bring ALL their returnables to her business; alas, so many people throw away the returnables in their household/business trash, while others throw them in recycling bins, or on the streets, as they're too lazy to do the proper thing.
I saw Carrie Woerner at the Rally and brought this issue up and she told me we should contact Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, Chair of Committee on Environmental Conservation LOB 621Albany, NY 12248 or 518-455-4841
Carrie Woerner has been in opposition to the Bigger Better Bottle Bill (BBBB). Deborah Glick, chair of CEC, has been a staunch supporter of BBBB. Woerner is not being honest.
Woener introduced Assembly Bill A3375, which would increase the handling fee paid to redemption centers by beverage distributors from 3.5 cents to 5 cents per can or bottle. It would also allow the distributors more access to the funds used to make such payouts.
One thing that is going on is that, although the big bottle bill does more, the Legislature and Deborah Glick have not been able to get it passed, for whatever reason. So Woerner and, I believe, others, have introduced one or more lifeline bills that would get the handling fee raised, in hopes of getting one of them passed in time to save redemption centers that haven't already gone out of business. Then broader issues, such as increasing the number of containers that qualify for redemption, would be addressed later. This is triage. Whatever you think of the quality of the different bills, if the handling fee isn't increased soon, the debate will be moot, because so many redemption centers will have closed.
You are correct about the feasibility issue -- there are nuances to consider. Woerner (she likely lobbied others) backed the far more limited bill well in advance of knowing whether the BBBB would pass. The reason that the BBBB (and numerous other sound environmental bills) did not pass is because Speaker Heastie would not bring it (them) to the floor for a vote. Evidence indicates that the BBBB (& PRRIA for that matter) would have passed in the Assembly if only brought up for a vote, despite furious opposition from the fossil fuel & plastics industry.
Totally agree: If the handling fee is not increased very soon, too many redemption centers will close. Terrible.
We are asking reps to pass the Ramos/Sepulveda bill as it provides a fairer pay rate (still under what we should be getting) and builds in increases to the handling fee as costs go up.
The fact that there is no current language forcing representatives to perform their duties to maintain this system is the exact reason we are in this crisis to begin with.
I have appreciated Carrie’s advocacy on this crisis. But she took what started as a very passable one paragraph lifeline bill and added two pages of language that, frankly, caters to the beverage companies.
We need our reps to take IMMEDIATE action to pass the Ramos/Sepulveda bills. A6267 & S8520a.
This is the best option as it brings the handling fee to 6¢, which is still under what is fair but a compromise. It also ties the handling fee to the costs associated with doing business, so that we never get left behind like this again.
The fact that there is no language in the current bottle bill to FORCE legislators to address fair pay is what has caused this appalling situation.
The issues for the bigger bottle bill will remain in need of addressing and redemption centers will continue to fight for those improvements, as our problems don’t stop at the handling fee. We are suffering lost volume, forced unpaid labor and abusive working conditions. All of this must be addressed as well. But we cannot continue to be used as sacrificial lambs while our politicians fight over every single detail.
The fact that Deborah Glick chairs the environmental committee and could have pushed a lifeline bill the last 3 years and refuses to do so in the name of her own bill, is quite honestly shameful. We’ve had 6x as many businesses close since I started this battle in 2023.
This is one of those times the GOP minority in both Assembly/Senate should be raising holy hell, make a public issue of it, even though they have no power in the state Legislature. They're always opposing anything the Dems propose and act on, so maybe they should get on their soapboxes to embarrass the Dems and Hochul.
I have pleaded with reps on all sides of this issue. Democrats refuse to take action. And republicans seem to only want to lay blame, but not publicly or loudly enough to force action.
Another encouraging piece of news: Brown University said no to signing Trump's compact that would give preferential funding to schools that sign and follow his rules. Brown was the second to reject it. I hope this is precedent setting for the rest on the list.
Shuttering news media access to the Pentagon comes as Trump & Hegseth make clumsy, boss baby overtures to 800 top brass @ Quantico & 10,000 Navy sailors @ Norfolk. I think they're trying to hide an effort to deceive/con/manipulate/seduce/bully enough service people into switching loyalty from the Constitution, over to Trump. Hegseth leading the way.
They may also be trying to hide efforts to get us into a war with Venezuela, so Trump can declare "war" powers that give him near/dictatorial authority (e.g., in WWII, FDR put 120,000 Japanese-American men, women & children in prisons, & during Vietnam, LBJ drafted millions of working class male college students away from their shot at middle class). I was early poverty draft in '62.
Lastly, hog-tying those "snooping" reporters can help hide my suspected theory that Trump keeps shoving ICE thugs & infantry troops into cities where they're not wanted, until some teen, who's terrified that they're sending Mom back to the cartels, happens to have, and uses, a gun. Trump could then justify invoking the Insurrection Act to complete his fascist take over. Any way we can help the media expose these criminal tactics, will help. Anyone on this party line have friends or relatives who are civilian or military employees in DC?
I'll bet our CIA operatives in Venezuela are simply overjoyed that Trumpty Dumpty stressed publicly that the personnel are already operating in the country and have orders to destabilize another sovereign nation. He's such a moron that he doesn't know the definition of covert operations. What's Diaper Don going to do when the CIA operatives are found, arrested, imprisoned and paraded publicly on their way to prison? And when is someone going to stop tRump from violating international law by blowing up alleged "drug boats" in international waters without proof (as usual)?
Very compelling. I have just written my State reps and Hochul urging them to move the legislation through and get it signed. Would be helpful to have the relevant bill numbers. Can you (or a reader) provide them?
We are urging representatives to take emergency action to pass bills A6267 & S8520a to stop the closures NOW. And we can focus our energy on the improvements very much left in need of addressing in a bigger bill.
We appear to be being used as sacrificial lambs for a bigger cause and frankly, I am done being used as a pawn for others.
I agree all these other issues need to be addressed. But the bill has been too big and too complicated and doesn’t leave room for other industries to have a say. Which causes it to fail YEAR AFTER YEAR. And what happens each year is that environmental folks decide to stuff even MORE in there rather than accept that we need to take a step back and be reasonable.
They don’t lose a thing when this fails. We are losing EVERYTHING.
I wish they would raise the deposit on consumers because the nickel just isn't changing people's mindset on protecting the environment and providing jobs. As Will wrote, the state got an estimated $120 million from returnables that weren't redeemed, proving people don't care about the nickel. I'll bet 25-cent deposit on each container would change some minds.
Hi. Good question. They are two SEPARATE components to the bottle bill. Our handling fee has zero to do with the deposit. The beverage companies are responsible for paying our handling fee. The issue comes from the fact that they fight against us getting fair pay because they used to get 100% of the money from the unclaimed fund (deposit money paid in but not claimed because people chose to throw out containers rather than return them). But in 2009 the state shifted 80% of that money to themselves. With $0 of it EVER being invested into the system from which it came. And guess when the last time they updated the bottle bill was? 2009. They’ve literally done NOTHING to maintain this collapsing system since they started gaining from its demise.
It honestly feels like the state is looking at us like a piggy bank. The more they break us (and the system) the more money they can shake out for themselves. Money that is not free, but meant for New Yorkers.
The messed up part of this is that in the beginning of this system, they said “The slob will fund the system.” Because that money (the unclaimed fund) was meant to sustain the system and keep redemption centers in operation to support it. But people aren’t being “slobs” and choosing not to recycle anymore, the state is cutting off their access by causing these closures. And the money is NOT finding the system any longer as the state is frankly stealing it from us.
As for the Legislature deciding to take 80 percent of the unclaimed bottle and can deposits, what constitutes an unclaimed bottle and can? Returnables can be redeemed several years after the consumer bought the can or bottle. I doubt someone knows how many returnable plastic bottles are repurposed, or how glass bottles are smashed, or how many cans get mangled beyond recognition.
I have felt for several years that with mandatory recycling that the bottle bill was no longer required. When enacted all those years ago I was a strong backer, and frankly it worked. It reduced litter, it reduced landfill volume, frankly it did all the things that it promised. But now it is no longer required. We have available ways to handle our waste stream that we did not then. It is time to revisit the entire issue in the light of today's realities and revise as necessary.
That’s just not true. States with no deposit but recycling have far far lower rates of bottle and can return. The cash incentive makes a huge difference
Tom, I think you make a good point. The technology required to separate waste streams at the point of processing continues to improve. We aren't asked to pay a specific recycling fee for most of the things we buy, yet people do separate them into waste and recycle bins -- if only to increase their bin capacity to get through the collection cycle.
One wonders if recycling might be more lucrative for waste processing facilities if high-value bottles and cans weren't siphoned out of the waste stream, but were instead allowed to contribute to the processing facility's revenue. That would motivate further advances in separation techniques, which would ultimately be more valuable than bottle and can recycling centers because it would make it possible to pick up more of those lower value recyclables that people would never take to a recycling center.
Respectfully. that misses the point of my argument. The advantage of eliminating the container fee would be that there would be an increase in the amount of high-value material that appears in the waste processing stream. Accepting that only some of that will appear in recycle bins, it will nonetheless increase the amount presented for recycling at the processing center, and so increase the revenue of the recycling process. Any any improvement in the processing center's recycling processes yields leveraged returns because it applies to current recyclables as well as the high-value recyclables currently going to collection centers.
You’re right I don’t understand your argument. On the one hand you have bottle and can returns supporting local businesses and employment. On the other, you have them getting dumped atvthevtransfer station. And it is relevant in the overall picture what percentage of the “high value recyclables” get returned. The cash people collect at redemption centers to get their deposits back drives a much higher rate of return.
Perhaps my perspective is shaped by the fact that I'm focused on process and results. From the consumer's standpoint, it is more effective to simply throw recyclables into the bin and pull them to the curb every week or two. Let the processing center efficiently handle the contents.
Most of us don't go to the recycling center because it's a nuisance. Paying us five cents a can to do it isn't much of an incentive. We should focus our attention on making the bulk recycling process more efficient. Ms. Eddy will never be able to leverage technology and automation to make her collection and sorting more efficient. Let the waste industry do that in bulk.
Kudos to the press corps for walking out from the Pentagon. And a belated kudo to Albany Airport for removing the video, although I contend that their excuse that they "didn't know it was playing" is weak. But when all else failed they did the right thing.
I have people coming to my business from 45 minutes away because they live in what have become redemption deserts. One of them brings containers from the Johnsburgh transfer station, which is now being overburdened with containers because residents have no where to go and are tossing them in the trash.
This is having a massive negative impact on all New York communities and our legislators should be ashamed that they are ignoring their constituents.
I'm sorry Ms. Eddy's business is struggling. As she points out, that minimum wage has more than doubled since the original bottle payment was put in place. Unfortunately there are only two ways to "keep up": raise the recycle fee on every bottle sold in the state, or spend state tax dollars to support the recycle centers. Overtaxed New Yorkers faced with already high prices might not like either choice.
I have friends who have had to close their businesses because, like Ms. Eddy, they simply can't afford to pay the state's unusually high mandated minimum wage. But I don't want the state spending tax dollars to keep businesses open, when the biggest problem those businesses face is that the state is making them pay more than they'd otherwise have to to hire help.
That’s not correct. The redemption centers do not get anything from the deposit money, they return the deposit money — all of it — to the people who bring in bottles and cans. The redemption centres get paid from the handling fee, which is set by the state but paid by distributors like PepsiCo. No tax money is involved. The handling fee has not been increased in 16 years, that is the problem.
Thank you for explaining that, Will. However, it doesn't change the substance of what I said: the two choices are to subsidize Ms. Eddy out of tax dollars, or to increase the cost to consumers -- in this case, by increasing the cost to producers who will then pass on the cost to consumers. Whether the extra cost is imposed at the point of sale (the bottle fee) or earlier in the production process (the wholesalers or producer), it will eventually be paid by the consumer.
As you know, the state is spending tax money to spur business all the time, except when it comes to helping flailing businesses. Just explore the so-called DRI grants (usually in $10 million increments) handed out throughout NYS, including Glens Falls and Lake George. Think of the several million dollars alone to build a new amphitheater in Shepard Park, LG, a luxury that would only be used for a few months each year. All that money floating around LG and state taxpayers have to foot the bill for folly. But nothing for small businesses -- which politicians here like to call the backbone of NYS. Sigh.
So, who's going to investigate ICE Barbie Noem and her thuggish assistants for the video if even legal scholars believe it violates the Hatch Act? DOJ, FBI, et. al. are all under Trumpty Dumpty's thumb, federal inspectors general with ethics are all gone, impartial prosecutors have been fired ......... Congressional Dems/independents have no chance at getting the majority MAGAts to investigate. SCROTUM, formerly SCOTUS, would be gone on vacation, complements of their billionaire, right-wing benefactors. And Diaper Don's uneducated (he said he loves the uneducated, that's a fact) cult members wonder why there were "No Kings" rallies here and around the world.
Thank you for spotlighting the bottle recycling problem. We need MT Returnables and other redemption centers. Clink is a scam! You have to buy the bags, thereby, not getting back your redemption that you paid to the state!! Ever since I met Jade, I have been collecting bottles and cans at work, at events, and as litter. I collect about $10 every ten days. If Jade has to close, there is no way I'm buying Clink at Hannaford or standing at Price Chopper and dropping one.can.at.a.time into that machine. No, thank you.
“Rebellion is born when rulers forget they are meant to serve.” - Confucius
Old Confucius had a lot of really good quotes that apply to many many issues! Too bad our supposed politicians either dont comprehend their meaning!
Let’s make them!
There likely would be some good examples for "signage"!
That's because these alleged politicians -- actually, right wingnuts -- are too busy winning to comprehend anything except their ego, power, lying, promoting democracy's decay and defending their right to racism, bigotry, violence, incendiary words, etc... They can't even spell Confucius and probably think the guy is another illegal immigrant that should be beaten and deported.
Confucious sadly, is an "other" to these folks.
Republicans are supposed to be pro small business. Democrats were supposed to be an environmentally sensitive. Why can’t the two parties come together on a very small issue that will save some small businesses, help the environment and cost essentially nothing to the individual consumer.
Good question. Since there is no obvious obstacle to getting this done, I have to wonder whether it’s the money from the huge beverage companies that is persuading legislators to do nothing.
Seems likely it is the lobbying of the beverage companies, AND the “free” money from unclaimed deposits, AND legislative inertia - lack of spine or willingness to do work, AND the fact that few of the people most affected donate to politicians or vote.
Jade’s business is located in a lower income section of Queensbury and the people there value their nickels.
While mowing one day a woman with a small child walking and one in a stroller were picking up cans in the ditch out front. She motioned to me and I shut off the mower so I could hear. She asked me if it was okay to take the cans from my ditch. I asked if she was taking them to MT Returnables and she said she was.
It’s about a mile to Jade’s from my place. I was stunned.
The few nickels she could collect clearly made a difference in her life.
What happens to her and others if MT Returnables closes?
We used to pick up bottles and return them when we were kids. I might be wrong but I think quart bottles were a dime then. They were glass then, tho.
Thanks for writing about this, Will.
Follow the 💰💰💰
You already know the answer to that. The last year specifics records are available was 2010. In 2010, the beverage industry group spend $13 million lobbying the NYS legislature. It takes no conspiracy theorist to surmise that number is much larger in 2025.
The state has made nearly $2 billion off the unclaimed fund since they diverted 80% of the money to themselves. Commissioners in 1985 warned that the state should NOT get their hands on this money, as it was intended to sustain the system.
Well, that warning was ignored and now the the state is getting that money and not using a single penny of it to sustain the system, the system is collapsing.
New York is on the verge of being the very first state to cause this system to fail. Hope our legislators are proud.
Previous news articles about and "lobbying" by Jade Eddy note a bill boosting the returnable deposit money earned by the independent businesses stall in state legislative committees, then conveniently expire at the end of legislative sessions. And the fault lies with majority Dems in state Assembly and Senate, who have veto-proof numbers in the event the Dem governor vetoed the bills. If they are receiving bribes, er, I mean, campaign donations from the beverage industry, it should be listed in their financial reports. But who has the time and expertise to filter through all that publicly available data? Even if someone reviewed just our local state reps, maybe that would indicate who is actually bought and paid for by the bills' opponents.
Republicans are generally pro-big business. Democrats like to brand themselves pro-small business and pro-consumer but are the misleaders are owned by big corporations like the Republicans are. It seems like a small issue to most, except to Pepsi, Coke and their distributors. That's who've bought Assembly Democrat power brokers.
I've made several calls in attempt to help Jade. Maybe we could all jump in and help?
I had all the contact numbers but they are now lost in my *papers* lol. I know that more awareness will be helpful .
As automation and AI take over I fear for many small businesses.
Thanks for this article - Jade works really hard and still finds time to help her community. She is a neighbor you want.
I believe Jade even has a food pantry at her business for anyone to patronize, even if people aren't bringing in returnable bottles/cans/plastic. If this were Utopia, everyone would bring ALL their returnables to her business; alas, so many people throw away the returnables in their household/business trash, while others throw them in recycling bins, or on the streets, as they're too lazy to do the proper thing.
Let's do Jade a favor and call or write our State Reps to ask them about this.
Done!
It might help if ALL of us who comment here - no matter what NY district we are in - gives our state reps a jab about this, right?
I saw Carrie Woerner at the Rally and brought this issue up and she told me we should contact Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, Chair of Committee on Environmental Conservation LOB 621Albany, NY 12248 or 518-455-4841
I sent a comment on this to my "assemblyman" - someone, frankly, I never heard of and of course a republican.
Carrie Woerner has been in opposition to the Bigger Better Bottle Bill (BBBB). Deborah Glick, chair of CEC, has been a staunch supporter of BBBB. Woerner is not being honest.
Post Star - March, 2024
Woener introduced Assembly Bill A3375, which would increase the handling fee paid to redemption centers by beverage distributors from 3.5 cents to 5 cents per can or bottle. It would also allow the distributors more access to the funds used to make such payouts.
Woerner's bill would not extend nearly as far as the BBBB.
This link contains the bill numbers for BBBB, plus great info: https://www.bottlebill40.org/
One thing that is going on is that, although the big bottle bill does more, the Legislature and Deborah Glick have not been able to get it passed, for whatever reason. So Woerner and, I believe, others, have introduced one or more lifeline bills that would get the handling fee raised, in hopes of getting one of them passed in time to save redemption centers that haven't already gone out of business. Then broader issues, such as increasing the number of containers that qualify for redemption, would be addressed later. This is triage. Whatever you think of the quality of the different bills, if the handling fee isn't increased soon, the debate will be moot, because so many redemption centers will have closed.
You are correct about the feasibility issue -- there are nuances to consider. Woerner (she likely lobbied others) backed the far more limited bill well in advance of knowing whether the BBBB would pass. The reason that the BBBB (and numerous other sound environmental bills) did not pass is because Speaker Heastie would not bring it (them) to the floor for a vote. Evidence indicates that the BBBB (& PRRIA for that matter) would have passed in the Assembly if only brought up for a vote, despite furious opposition from the fossil fuel & plastics industry.
Totally agree: If the handling fee is not increased very soon, too many redemption centers will close. Terrible.
We are asking reps to pass the Ramos/Sepulveda bill as it provides a fairer pay rate (still under what we should be getting) and builds in increases to the handling fee as costs go up.
The fact that there is no current language forcing representatives to perform their duties to maintain this system is the exact reason we are in this crisis to begin with.
I have appreciated Carrie’s advocacy on this crisis. But she took what started as a very passable one paragraph lifeline bill and added two pages of language that, frankly, caters to the beverage companies.
We need our reps to take IMMEDIATE action to pass the Ramos/Sepulveda bills. A6267 & S8520a.
This is the best option as it brings the handling fee to 6¢, which is still under what is fair but a compromise. It also ties the handling fee to the costs associated with doing business, so that we never get left behind like this again.
The fact that there is no language in the current bottle bill to FORCE legislators to address fair pay is what has caused this appalling situation.
The issues for the bigger bottle bill will remain in need of addressing and redemption centers will continue to fight for those improvements, as our problems don’t stop at the handling fee. We are suffering lost volume, forced unpaid labor and abusive working conditions. All of this must be addressed as well. But we cannot continue to be used as sacrificial lambs while our politicians fight over every single detail.
The fact that Deborah Glick chairs the environmental committee and could have pushed a lifeline bill the last 3 years and refuses to do so in the name of her own bill, is quite honestly shameful. We’ve had 6x as many businesses close since I started this battle in 2023.
This is one of those times the GOP minority in both Assembly/Senate should be raising holy hell, make a public issue of it, even though they have no power in the state Legislature. They're always opposing anything the Dems propose and act on, so maybe they should get on their soapboxes to embarrass the Dems and Hochul.
I have pleaded with reps on all sides of this issue. Democrats refuse to take action. And republicans seem to only want to lay blame, but not publicly or loudly enough to force action.
We are literally left on our own to die.
Another encouraging piece of news: Brown University said no to signing Trump's compact that would give preferential funding to schools that sign and follow his rules. Brown was the second to reject it. I hope this is precedent setting for the rest on the list.
Shuttering news media access to the Pentagon comes as Trump & Hegseth make clumsy, boss baby overtures to 800 top brass @ Quantico & 10,000 Navy sailors @ Norfolk. I think they're trying to hide an effort to deceive/con/manipulate/seduce/bully enough service people into switching loyalty from the Constitution, over to Trump. Hegseth leading the way.
They may also be trying to hide efforts to get us into a war with Venezuela, so Trump can declare "war" powers that give him near/dictatorial authority (e.g., in WWII, FDR put 120,000 Japanese-American men, women & children in prisons, & during Vietnam, LBJ drafted millions of working class male college students away from their shot at middle class). I was early poverty draft in '62.
Lastly, hog-tying those "snooping" reporters can help hide my suspected theory that Trump keeps shoving ICE thugs & infantry troops into cities where they're not wanted, until some teen, who's terrified that they're sending Mom back to the cartels, happens to have, and uses, a gun. Trump could then justify invoking the Insurrection Act to complete his fascist take over. Any way we can help the media expose these criminal tactics, will help. Anyone on this party line have friends or relatives who are civilian or military employees in DC?
I'll bet our CIA operatives in Venezuela are simply overjoyed that Trumpty Dumpty stressed publicly that the personnel are already operating in the country and have orders to destabilize another sovereign nation. He's such a moron that he doesn't know the definition of covert operations. What's Diaper Don going to do when the CIA operatives are found, arrested, imprisoned and paraded publicly on their way to prison? And when is someone going to stop tRump from violating international law by blowing up alleged "drug boats" in international waters without proof (as usual)?
Very compelling. I have just written my State reps and Hochul urging them to move the legislation through and get it signed. Would be helpful to have the relevant bill numbers. Can you (or a reader) provide them?
This link contains the bill numbers, plus great info: https://www.bottlebill40.org/
Thank you!
Please see my comment on Carrie Woerner -- she opposes the BBBB (as well as other good environmental bills).
Just checked it. Grrrrrr.
We have all the bills listed at www.nybottlebill.com
We are urging representatives to take emergency action to pass bills A6267 & S8520a to stop the closures NOW. And we can focus our energy on the improvements very much left in need of addressing in a bigger bill.
We appear to be being used as sacrificial lambs for a bigger cause and frankly, I am done being used as a pawn for others.
I agree all these other issues need to be addressed. But the bill has been too big and too complicated and doesn’t leave room for other industries to have a say. Which causes it to fail YEAR AFTER YEAR. And what happens each year is that environmental folks decide to stuff even MORE in there rather than accept that we need to take a step back and be reasonable.
They don’t lose a thing when this fails. We are losing EVERYTHING.
If they raise the handling fee, will they also raise the deposit consumers pay? I'm assuming so. That might be the reason for the dithering?
I wish they would raise the deposit on consumers because the nickel just isn't changing people's mindset on protecting the environment and providing jobs. As Will wrote, the state got an estimated $120 million from returnables that weren't redeemed, proving people don't care about the nickel. I'll bet 25-cent deposit on each container would change some minds.
Hi. Good question. They are two SEPARATE components to the bottle bill. Our handling fee has zero to do with the deposit. The beverage companies are responsible for paying our handling fee. The issue comes from the fact that they fight against us getting fair pay because they used to get 100% of the money from the unclaimed fund (deposit money paid in but not claimed because people chose to throw out containers rather than return them). But in 2009 the state shifted 80% of that money to themselves. With $0 of it EVER being invested into the system from which it came. And guess when the last time they updated the bottle bill was? 2009. They’ve literally done NOTHING to maintain this collapsing system since they started gaining from its demise.
It honestly feels like the state is looking at us like a piggy bank. The more they break us (and the system) the more money they can shake out for themselves. Money that is not free, but meant for New Yorkers.
The messed up part of this is that in the beginning of this system, they said “The slob will fund the system.” Because that money (the unclaimed fund) was meant to sustain the system and keep redemption centers in operation to support it. But people aren’t being “slobs” and choosing not to recycle anymore, the state is cutting off their access by causing these closures. And the money is NOT finding the system any longer as the state is frankly stealing it from us.
Some how we need to help businesses like Jade's.
As for the Legislature deciding to take 80 percent of the unclaimed bottle and can deposits, what constitutes an unclaimed bottle and can? Returnables can be redeemed several years after the consumer bought the can or bottle. I doubt someone knows how many returnable plastic bottles are repurposed, or how glass bottles are smashed, or how many cans get mangled beyond recognition.
That’s a very good question, to which I am sure there is an answer somewhere. I’m going to ask about that when I have a chance
I have felt for several years that with mandatory recycling that the bottle bill was no longer required. When enacted all those years ago I was a strong backer, and frankly it worked. It reduced litter, it reduced landfill volume, frankly it did all the things that it promised. But now it is no longer required. We have available ways to handle our waste stream that we did not then. It is time to revisit the entire issue in the light of today's realities and revise as necessary.
That’s just not true. States with no deposit but recycling have far far lower rates of bottle and can return. The cash incentive makes a huge difference
Tom, I think you make a good point. The technology required to separate waste streams at the point of processing continues to improve. We aren't asked to pay a specific recycling fee for most of the things we buy, yet people do separate them into waste and recycle bins -- if only to increase their bin capacity to get through the collection cycle.
One wonders if recycling might be more lucrative for waste processing facilities if high-value bottles and cans weren't siphoned out of the waste stream, but were instead allowed to contribute to the processing facility's revenue. That would motivate further advances in separation techniques, which would ultimately be more valuable than bottle and can recycling centers because it would make it possible to pick up more of those lower value recyclables that people would never take to a recycling center.
Nope. Because people don’t recycle at anywhere near the rate that they redeem for cash
Respectfully. that misses the point of my argument. The advantage of eliminating the container fee would be that there would be an increase in the amount of high-value material that appears in the waste processing stream. Accepting that only some of that will appear in recycle bins, it will nonetheless increase the amount presented for recycling at the processing center, and so increase the revenue of the recycling process. Any any improvement in the processing center's recycling processes yields leveraged returns because it applies to current recyclables as well as the high-value recyclables currently going to collection centers.
You’re right I don’t understand your argument. On the one hand you have bottle and can returns supporting local businesses and employment. On the other, you have them getting dumped atvthevtransfer station. And it is relevant in the overall picture what percentage of the “high value recyclables” get returned. The cash people collect at redemption centers to get their deposits back drives a much higher rate of return.
Perhaps my perspective is shaped by the fact that I'm focused on process and results. From the consumer's standpoint, it is more effective to simply throw recyclables into the bin and pull them to the curb every week or two. Let the processing center efficiently handle the contents.
Most of us don't go to the recycling center because it's a nuisance. Paying us five cents a can to do it isn't much of an incentive. We should focus our attention on making the bulk recycling process more efficient. Ms. Eddy will never be able to leverage technology and automation to make her collection and sorting more efficient. Let the waste industry do that in bulk.
Kudos to the press corps for walking out from the Pentagon. And a belated kudo to Albany Airport for removing the video, although I contend that their excuse that they "didn't know it was playing" is weak. But when all else failed they did the right thing.
Good column! I would add that many stores selling redeemable cans and I bottles don't have return it services.
I have people coming to my business from 45 minutes away because they live in what have become redemption deserts. One of them brings containers from the Johnsburgh transfer station, which is now being overburdened with containers because residents have no where to go and are tossing them in the trash.
This is having a massive negative impact on all New York communities and our legislators should be ashamed that they are ignoring their constituents.
I'm sorry Ms. Eddy's business is struggling. As she points out, that minimum wage has more than doubled since the original bottle payment was put in place. Unfortunately there are only two ways to "keep up": raise the recycle fee on every bottle sold in the state, or spend state tax dollars to support the recycle centers. Overtaxed New Yorkers faced with already high prices might not like either choice.
I have friends who have had to close their businesses because, like Ms. Eddy, they simply can't afford to pay the state's unusually high mandated minimum wage. But I don't want the state spending tax dollars to keep businesses open, when the biggest problem those businesses face is that the state is making them pay more than they'd otherwise have to to hire help.
That’s not correct. The redemption centers do not get anything from the deposit money, they return the deposit money — all of it — to the people who bring in bottles and cans. The redemption centres get paid from the handling fee, which is set by the state but paid by distributors like PepsiCo. No tax money is involved. The handling fee has not been increased in 16 years, that is the problem.
Thank you for explaining that, Will. However, it doesn't change the substance of what I said: the two choices are to subsidize Ms. Eddy out of tax dollars, or to increase the cost to consumers -- in this case, by increasing the cost to producers who will then pass on the cost to consumers. Whether the extra cost is imposed at the point of sale (the bottle fee) or earlier in the production process (the wholesalers or producer), it will eventually be paid by the consumer.
As you know, the state is spending tax money to spur business all the time, except when it comes to helping flailing businesses. Just explore the so-called DRI grants (usually in $10 million increments) handed out throughout NYS, including Glens Falls and Lake George. Think of the several million dollars alone to build a new amphitheater in Shepard Park, LG, a luxury that would only be used for a few months each year. All that money floating around LG and state taxpayers have to foot the bill for folly. But nothing for small businesses -- which politicians here like to call the backbone of NYS. Sigh.
So, who's going to investigate ICE Barbie Noem and her thuggish assistants for the video if even legal scholars believe it violates the Hatch Act? DOJ, FBI, et. al. are all under Trumpty Dumpty's thumb, federal inspectors general with ethics are all gone, impartial prosecutors have been fired ......... Congressional Dems/independents have no chance at getting the majority MAGAts to investigate. SCROTUM, formerly SCOTUS, would be gone on vacation, complements of their billionaire, right-wing benefactors. And Diaper Don's uneducated (he said he loves the uneducated, that's a fact) cult members wonder why there were "No Kings" rallies here and around the world.
Thanks for the article on Jade Eddy and the redemption centers.
Thank you for spotlighting the bottle recycling problem. We need MT Returnables and other redemption centers. Clink is a scam! You have to buy the bags, thereby, not getting back your redemption that you paid to the state!! Ever since I met Jade, I have been collecting bottles and cans at work, at events, and as litter. I collect about $10 every ten days. If Jade has to close, there is no way I'm buying Clink at Hannaford or standing at Price Chopper and dropping one.can.at.a.time into that machine. No, thank you.