Bottle bill backers say ads misleading
By Kevin Dayton
Advertiser Capitol Bureau Chief
Supporters of the proposed "bottle bill" yesterday accused the beverage industry of misleading the public with an advertising campaign designed to sink the measure.
Gary Gill, Health Department deputy director for environmental health, said the industry is "masquerading as a community group" in their advertising campaign, and are spreading misinformation about the bottle bill to try to stop it.
While the radio and newspaper advertisements suggest "special interests" are pushing the bill, a recent telephone poll found 70 percent of the public supports the idea, Gill said. He said the proposal is also backed by the county mayors and the governor.
"People come to Hawai'i expecting it to be a tropical paradise, and are upset and appalled at the amount of litter we have," Gill said. He said the bill would reduce litter as people collect bottles and cans to claim the deposit.
Gary Yoshioka, representative for the Hawai'i Citizens for Comprehensive Recycling, said it is Gill who is misrepresenting the facts. That group, made up of food-and-beverage industry representatives, has fielded advertisements criticizing the bottle bill. But Yoshioka said he will not disclose who is in the group or how much is being spent until Gill discloses the same information. Yoshioka is general manager of the Pepsi Bottling Group-Hawai'i.
"We're just telling the truth, and we think the public needs to know about this new tax and about this new bureaucracy that he intends to create," Yoshioka said.
The bottle bill being considered by lawmakers would impose a new 5-cent deposit on most plastic, glass and aluminum beverage containers, along with a 2-cent fee charged for those containers at the wholesale level. There is already a 1.5-cent fee charged on all glass containers imported into the state to pay for recycling, and the 2-cent charge would replace that fee.
Consumers would be able to recover the nickel deposit by returning bottles and cans to "recovery" centers, but the 2-cent charge would be used to pay for recycling programs.
Yoshioka and critics of House Bill 1256 contend it would impose a new $26 million tax on consumers and would do little to reduce the flow of rubbish into the state's landfills. Instead, they advocate a new system of curbside recycling in urban areas, and other options in rural regions.
"Consumers need to ask themselves are they willing to pay higher prices in today's economy for something that generates less than a 1 percent improvement in recycling in this state," Yoshioka said.
Gill countered that the beverage industry favors a curbside program "because they don't have anything to do with it. They are proposing a solution which does not involve them. They are ignoring their responsibility for the rubbish that they helped create."
Curbside programs are expensive, which is why the counties haven't adopted them already, Gill said. He said that if the deposit were imposed, an estimated 80 percent of bottles, cans and plastic containers would be recycled.
Gill said there is evidence a bottle bill will not depress beverage sales, and said the deposit system will create jobs by expanding plastic, glass and aluminum recycling.
A House-Senate conference committee is scheduled to reconvene Tuesday to discuss the bill.
Reach Kevin Dayton at kdayton@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8070.
