Proposed deposits on containers would present an outstate burden

Three hundred words is not enough to explain the outstate burden of the proposed bottles and cans deposit bill. While it seemingly appears to have followed the process that the legislatures of the past have deemed the correct process, it is finally surfacing to public eye after beginning in 2009. Some believe it a solution to low plastic-recycling numbers. However, it hits those of us outstate as a regressive tax because the redemption centers are not cost effective for us.

Yes, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) did get public input, but only from those wonks who follow the MPCA on a daily basis. The rest of us are just beginning to hear of this. And they are prepared to spend many millions if not billions of dollars. Now let us set aside the many millions of dollars they spent on social-engineering studies, which if they were so effective: Why a bottle bill now?

The MPCA has no interest in cultivating a market for plastic recovery, and with all of the materials covered in the arena of recycling — ALL of those numbers would go up significantly if instead of a wrong-minded deposit bill they would sink those same funds into upgrading the tipping facilities to full-fledged “dirty” MRFs (Material Recovery Facilities).

In fact, many items that get disposed of would then be available for recovery. Not to mention that instead of people rinsing their recyclables, that could be done at those facilities in a manner that uses fewer resources and energy overall. Not to mention create far more jobs than their “studies” predict. In fact much of the infrastructure is already in place — why replace that with a step backward in efficiency? There are many flaws in the draft document. But why has there been so little discussion of this by media in general?

MinnPost welcomes original letters from readers on current topics of general interest. Interested in joining the conversation? Submit your letter to the editor.

The choice of letters for publication is at the discretion of MinnPost editors; they will not be able to respond to individual inquiries about letters.

Comments (1)

  1. Submitted by Todd Hintz on 01/24/2014 - 03:42 pm.

    Bill

    Why a bottle bill now? I would think that part is painfully obvious: because current initiatives aren’t getting our recycling rate high enough.

    Why is it that you felt the need to even ask that question?

Leave a Reply