Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Expanded bottle bill: Revenue enhancer, environmental initiative, or both?

Do you support expanding the “bottle bill” to include non-carbonated beverages, such as water and juice?

Is the idea just a tax in disguise? Or is it an effort to clean up our environment? Or both?


Note that this perennially-filed bill finally got through the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy for the first time last session. I serve on that committee, so I am looking for input on the topic. Vote in the poll at the top of this page and weigh in with your comments below.

7 comments:

  1. This state doesn't do anything unless there's money in it

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please Update the Bottle Bill Now!!
    It is very important that we update the bottle bill. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We need to do this now. So many juice, water, sports drink bottles going into landfills. It's unconscionable! It's a no brainer! Update our bottle bill.

    Tom Walsh

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is Not a tax. It is fully refundable? Taxes are NOT fully refundable. We need to update the bottle bill now. It saves money for towns and cities.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not a tax?.....ok, it is a fee.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We need to update the bottle bill now. There are too many water bottles on our streets, roads, parks, and public places. We all benefit from reduced litter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The expanded bottle bill is a good idea. I hope Mr. Hunt votes for it and tells Mr. DeLeo that a majority of people in the state want to see it passed.

    ReplyDelete

I monitor all comments. As long as there are no personally defamatory statements and/or foul language, I'll post your comment. For this reason, your comment will not appear instantaneously. To comment without registering, choose Name/URL and type a screen name (or your real name if you like) into the Name field. Leave the URL field blank.