Roanoke Times Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc. DATE: FRIDAY, February 1, 1991 TAG: 9102010754 SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO SOURCE: DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The space taken in landfills by bottles is tremendous. If the companies want to use non-returnable bottles, then they should do everything possible to recycle rather than bury them. Every year in Michigan, the bottling companies and their lobbyists were out in full force to try to rescind the bottle bill. Fortunately, the legislature heeded the public.
Ray Garland (column, Jan. 24) states: "Note well that another $1.20 will be taken from your pocket when you pick up that 12-pack." What he doesn't say is that all you have to do to get your $1.20 back is return the bottles later. There is no out-of-pocket cost - only a little time and effort.
He also states that people "were prepared to pay a small price for convenience," then says the cost for Coke is not much more today than 50 years ago, when we had returnable bottles. The price per ounce is not the point. We need to do something constructive to stop the waste and pollution caused by bottles, and other materials, not being reused in some form.
What it seems to come down to is that reasonably affluent people can afford to pay for the privilege of being wasteful, and they get very testy when told they either can't do something or must do something. Why not than offer them a choice?
Choice No. 1 would be that you can separate your trash into various components, bottles included, and it will be picked up at no additional cost. Choice No. 2 would be that you can continue wasting all recycable material, but the local landfill may reserve the right to charge you an additional fee.
We need to start somewhere, and a bottle bill is a step in the right direction. ROBERT E. LOCKHART TROUTVILLE
by CNB