--PRESS
RELEASE--
PRIDE
OF PLACE
The
comprehensive litter and recycling solution made possible by a Tennessee bottle
bill
Contact:
Marge
Davis
Scenic
Tennessee
(615)
758-8647
(615)
294-2651 cell
Michael
Gant
University
of Tennessee Social Science Research Institute
865-974-2730
865-974-2819
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March
25, 2008
UT
POLL: 80% OF TENNESSEANS SUPPORT A CONTAINER DEPOSIT
More than four out of five
Tennesseans—80.4%—support a refundable 5-cent deposit on glass,
plastic and aluminum beverage containers as a way to increase recycling and
reduce waste, according to a statewide survey conducted earlier this month by
the University of Tennessee's Social Science Research Institute in Knoxville.
The results are expected to bolster legislative support for a proposed
Tennessee "bottle bill" that is scheduled to go before a House
committee tomorrow.
The March 2008 Recycling Poll was conducted by
telephone among 777 randomly selected registered voters between March 2 and
March 20, 2008, providing a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points at the
95% confidence level. Michael Gant, director of the research institute and
professor of political science at UT, designed and analyzed the survey through
a contract with Scenic Tennessee, Inc. The Social Science Research
Institute is perhaps best known for its annual Tennessee Poll, which since 1989
has tracked TennesseansÕ attitudes on everything from a state income tax to the
lottery.
Survey results can be viewed at www.tnbottlebill.org.
While the pollÕs emphasis was on recycling, it
also sought perceptions about litter. Asked how much of a problem they consider
littering in Tennessee, 90.5% of respondents said they consider it to be a
problem, with 48.3% considering it a Òserious problem.Ó Litter was most likely
to be judged ÒseriousÓ among residents of East Tennessee (55.5%), farming
families (57%), those without any college (57.3%) and those earning less than
$25,000 a year (59.3%). Almost 70% of respondents (69.1%) said they felt a
container deposit would reduce litter in Tennessee.
As for recycling, more than a fourth of those
interviewed said they never or rarely recycle (26.8%), and another 17% said
they recycle only when convenient. Just 21.6% said they Òrecycle everything or
nearly everythingÓ they can. But almost 80% of the total felt that a 5-cent
deposit on glass, plastic and aluminum beverage containers would increase
recycling rates in Tennessee, and 75% said it would increase their own
recycling.
According to estimates from the stateÕs
Department of Environment and Conservation, TennesseeÕs household recycling
rate is only about 10%. By contrast, states with 5-cent deposits have recycling
rates for beverage containers that are as much as nine times higher than
Tennessee's (average 78%), as well as overall recycling rates that are as much
as five times higher (average 31%). In addition, their per-capita litter rates,
though not often calculated, appear to be as much as 90% lower than
TennesseeÕs.
ÒThe UT survey confirms what most legislators
tell us they have long suspected—that their constituents overwhelmingly
support a bottle bill,Ó said Marge Davis, vice president of Scenic Tennessee
and coordinator of the bottle-bill advocacy effort known as Pride of Place
(POP). ÒWhile we hope legislators will act on this new information, we also
hope it bolsters Governor BredesenÕs recent challenge to Tennessee to take the
lead in developing energy solutions that provide economic and environmental
benefits to its citizens.Ó
Support for a container deposit is strikingly
nonpartisan, Davis said. ÒAccording to the survey's demographic breakdowns,
support is consistently high across all party lines, all ages, all
regions, all income levels, all races, all education levels and all political
ideologies.Ó
For instance, she noted, nearly half of
respondents who identified a political ideology said they considered themselves
conservative (49%), followed by 34.3% moderate and 16.7% liberal. Yet an
overwhelming majority in all three groups said they would support a
deposit system: 81.7%, 84.5% and 90%, respectively. (Respondents who replied
ÒdonÕt know/not sureÓ are not included in the breakdown percentages.)
Moreover, said Davis, when asked if they would
ÒstronglyÓ support such a program versus merely ÒsupportingÓ it, 44.4% of
respondents said they would ÒstronglyÓ support it, compared to 36% who would
"support" it. This higher level of support was the case in virtually
all demographic subgroups. For instance, of the 82.9% of rural non-farm
dwellers who said they would support a bottle bill, 56.2% said they would
ÒstronglyÓ support it.
ÒThis level of endorsement applied across the
board,Ó said Davis. "I don't think I've ever seen anything like it."
Support among blacks, for instance, was 86%; among whites it was 84%. Support
among Democrats was 87.1%; among Republicans it was 82.4%. Support among high
school graduates was 86.4%; among college graduates it was 80.2%. Among those
making less than $15,000 a year it was 93.7%; among those making more than
$65,000 a year it was 85%. Among those in west Tennessee it was 83.4%; among
those in east Tennessee it was 84.5%. Among married people it was 83.6%; among
singles it was 91%. Among big-city dwellers it was 82.1%; in rural areas it was
82.9%. Among those less than 55 years old it was 87.6%; among those 55 and
older it was 81.3%.
Tomorrow the House Government Operations
Committee is scheduled to hear HB1829/SB1408, a container-deposit bill
introduced by Rep. Mike Turner (D-Old Hickory) and Sen. Doug Jackson
(D-Dickson). The bill has thirteen additional cosponsors—seven Democrats
and six Republicans.
Tennesseans should be grateful to these
legislators, Davis said, considering the powerful and well-funded opposition
the legislation faces from the stateÕs beverage and grocery industries.
"While these folks deserve to have their
say, we believe that in the end, legislators will vote with the majority of
their constituents on this bill, especially given its economic, social and
environmental benefits.Ó
These benefits include not just the recovery of
at least 200,000 tons of high-quality scrap each year. They also include longer
landfill life, increased funding for litter control, reduced taxpayer costs for
waste management, millions of fundraising dollars for schools, Little
Leagues and other community causes via Òbottle drives,Ó fewer injuries to
livestock, a strengthened tourism economy, reduced greenhouse gases, an
increased supply of feedstock to manufacturers like ALCOA and Mohawk, and the
creation of hundreds of small businesses in the form of independent, mostly
Òmom-&-popÓ redemption centers.
ÒThe biggest objection to bottle bills in the
past was that they forced grocers and other retailers to take back the empty
cans and bottles, costing them time, space and aggravation as well as money,Ó
said Davis. ÒThat was the old days. Today, most states have moved the
redemption process out of the stores and into neighborhood redemption centers,
which receive a handling fee paid by the beverage distributors to cover the
cost of collecting and sorting their packaging waste and making sure it goes
back into the manufacturing stream.Ó
TennesseeÕs bill relies exclusively on independent
redemption centers (which may be owned by local governments and nonprofit
agencies as well as businesses and individuals) and allots them a handling fee
of 3 cents per container. Private recyclers get the scrap for free in return
for providing regular pick-up and verification service.
According to 2005 beverage industry and USDA
data, Tennesseans consume 4.2 billion beers, sodas, bottled waters, energy
drinks, iced coffees, iced teas and so on every year. According to the
latest scrap prices published by Recyclers World, these containers collectively
have a potential market value of more than $100 million—or close to 3
cents a container. Under the proposed bottle bill, Tennessee can expect to
recover 85 percent of this material, most of which will be used to make new
beverage containers, greatly reducing energy usage and raw materials and thus
holding down production costs—savings that at some level will be felt by
the beverage companies.
ÒIndustry opponents claim that the 3-cent
handling fee will drive up beverage prices in the store,Ó Davis noted.
ÒHowever, if you look at bottle-bill states that have similar handling fees,
youÕll see that retail beverage prices in those states are actually lower, on
average, than in states without a container deposit, including Tennessee.Ó
In Maine, for instance, which has a 3-cent
handling fee, the everyday (not sale) price last week for a 12-pack of Coke at
a major supermarket chain (Hannaford Bros.) was $3.34, compared to $4.99 for
the same product at Kroger here in Tennessee. A 12-pack of Dasani water was
$3.99 at Hannaford, compared to $5.29 at Kroger. Minutemaid apple juice was
$3.39 for six 10-ounce plastic bottles, versus $3.99 at Kroger.
And while the shelf price for a Budweiser 6-pack
was lower in Tennessee ($5.49 at Kroger vs. $5.99 at Hannaford), a Budweiser
12-pack was the same price in both stores ($9.99), and a Budweiser 18-pack was
22% more expensive in Tennessee ($14.59 at Kroger versus $11.99 at
Hannaford).
The total for all these items was $38.69 in Maine
versus $44.34 in Tennessee—a difference of $5.65, or an increase of about
14%. Even if you include the refundable 5-cent deposits—$3.30 for 66
individual containers in this sample—the Maine shopper still comes out
ahead, by $2.35.
Of course, itÕs hard to say exactly what role
bottle bills play in setting beverage prices; other factors have an impact,
from transportation to taxes to utilities. But the bottom line is that it costs
money to throw away almost 4 billion containers a year.
The majority of Tennesseans appear to understand that.