Community Forums

Frank J. Regan posted on 08/16/09 8:30am

"ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO ANNOUNCES SIGNIFICANT COURT VICTORY UPHOLDING NEW BOTTLE BILL - Court Decision Will Promote Cleaner Communities, Green Jobs Will Deliver Over $100 Million in Added Revenue to New York State Budget" [http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/aug/aug14a_09.html]

The decision this week by a federal judge that the expansion of New York's bottle-deposit law should take effect immediately is welcome news. Some tenacious advocates like Laura Haight, senior environmental associate for the New York Public Interest Research Group, have fought for this necessary law to aid recycling for years. [http://www.nypirg.org/enviro/bottlebill/] Most New Yorkers have long favored a law to include more bottles for refunding because it will reduce trash and help the public coffers. Many have resisted a change in the bottle-deposit law because (among the litany of arguments) there isn’t a fair structure in our state to redeem vast quantities of discarded bottles.

It is more complicated than this, as most environmental issues are, but essentially most New Yorkers think that if you put a deposit on a bottle it is more likely to get recycledâ€"or not trashed--but some people are going to have to pay a price for this law. It is true: it will inconvenience or burden some people or some business to help our environment. In fact, regulating how we remove resources from the planet and what will be allowed to be put into our environment are going to be an on-going headache in our society. And, all societies for that matter. It’s simple: A finite planet supporting six and a half billion people who all want stuff is going to be problematical because stuff piles up and harms the environmentâ€"you know, that three billion year old system that keeps us alive and thriving.

What seems to be missing from the reporting about the long battle for this recent expansion of the bottle law, and many other issues where one sector of the population is going to be unevenly stung by changes in laws to prevent harm to our life support system, is how we spread the burden of curbing that harm. The underlying assumption appears to be that some people have inadvertently placed themselves in an economically vulnerable spotâ€"one that leaves them open to future regulations where there used to be none. That, speaking from the point of view of a species that wishes to continue on into that wonderful place called the future, is not a healthy assumption.

A more prudent assumption about the certain rise in regulations aimed to protect our planet is that we all should become engaged in the health of our environment. Instead of taking ten years to pass an updated deposit law for fear of hurting the bottling industry or small grocery stores, a solution should have been worked out quickly based on a society of informed citizens willing accept that our way of life has responsibilities. Many of the things we used to do were not good for our planet (i.e. our survival) and our present system of shifting the burden on the few means it takes a long time to solve environmental problems. That makes lawyers rich, but it jeopardizes our way of life. How much trash could have been avoided in the last ten years if we had quickly changed the laws and provided (at public cost) incentives for more redemption centers?

At some point in the continuum of our trashing the planet, the courts aren’t going to be able to handle the load. Then, were all going to pay whether we like it or not.

Frank J. Regan (RochesterEnvironment.com)