The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; The Battle of the Bottles

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford may be leaving a lot of voters cold or fairly lukewarm in this election, but there`s one issue which has really got people excited in a number of states. It is non- disposable bottles -- bottles that can be re-used; bottles you pay a deposit on and take back to the store, like the old days; bottles you supposedly don`t discard on the highways; bottles that cause lower consumption of energy and raw materials -- in short, the kind of bottles the environmentalists love and bottle-makers hate. Four states -- Michigan, Massachusetts, Maine and Colorado -- will have initiatives on the ballot next Tuesday calling for compulsory deposits of at least five cents on all beverage bottles and containers. The issue has provoked intense campaigning and a media blitz rivaling the Presidential race. For example, in Massachusetts:

(Anti-Bottle Initiative Commercial)

WOMAN: I`ve heard some dumb ideas, but the Bottle Bill takes the cake. When you live on a fixed income, shopping is tough enough, but the bottles are deposit, why, the prices could go even higher and I`11 be carrying empties back and standing in line.... They say it will cut litter, but I don`t litter, and I don`t understand why I should be forced to pay for people who do.

(Pro-Bottle Initiative Commercial)

MAN: Ladies and gentlemen, have I got the latest and greatest little convenience for you. The disposable can -- just use it once, and throw it away, and throw it away ... throw it away...throw it away ... throw it away...ha, ha, ha, ha....

SPEAKER: The convenience ends here. Help clean up this five million dollar mess. Back the Bottle Bill -- Vote yes on 6.

(Anti-Bottle Initiative Commercial)

TRACTOR DRIVER: People talk about the Bottle Bill. You know it`s also a can bill? Whatever, it doesn`t make any sense, because it doesn`t call for the one thing that could help -- recycling. Do you believe it? Cans, bottles, they`ve been dumped here for years. Now they`re going to force you to pay deposits on them and store them and then lug them back to where you bought them. And then they`re still going to end up in this dump; after all that trouble, they`re still going to end up here. Now, that`s a stupid bill.

JIM LEHRER: Those commercials show clearly that it`s gotten tough and slick in Massachusetts. The original sponsor of the Massachusetts Bottle Initiative, and currently the chairman of the Committee for the Massachusetts Bottle Bill is Representative Lois Pines. She`s an attorney who has served as a Massachusetts state representative since 1973. First, Representative Pines, if passed, what specifically would this proposition do?

LOIS PINES: The bill would mandate a five-cent deposit on all bottles and cans and it would prohibit the sale of those cans that have a metal flip- top detachable top. Cans would be permitted to be sold in the Commonwealth; however, the manufacturers would have to use an alternative means of opening the can, so that the metal detachable flip-top would not be utilized.

LEHRER: In essence, it doesn`t ban the disposable bottle; it just requires a deposit if they`re used -- or does it ban a disposable bottle?

PINES: Absolutely not. It merely imposes a deposit on all bottles.

LEHRER: All bottles.

PINES: And cans, and bans the flip-top on the can.

LEHRER: Obviously, you sponsored this. I mean you`re backing this and you`re in charge of the effort -- what, in simple terms, do you think the benefits are of this particular bill?

PINES: The benefits are numerous. If this legislation is accepted by the people on November second, we anticipate upwards of 1400 new jobs for people in the Commonwealth; we expect a new re cycling industry would be established; we expect that the cost to the consumers of the purchase of soda and beer in the Commonwealth would be cheaper; in addition, we expect that our property taxes would be lowered because at present throwaway containers constitute between six and eight percent of all of the trash that our cities and towns have to collect and dispose of. In addition, we anticipate energy savings which are so critical to us in this country -- not only to us in the Northeast, where we`re so dependent on the Mideast for imported oil. From the standpoint of litter, we anticipate litter reduction and reduced injuries from bottles that are broken and the flip- tops that we find at our beaches and our parks.

LEHRER: You make it sound like it`s the solution to all our problems. How do you know that all of these things are going to happen with this initiative as a law in Massachusetts?

PINES: We can look to the experience that Vermont and -- more particularly -- Oregon have had over the past few years.

LEHRER: Both of these states have similar things and have had them, in Vermont`s case, I think it`s for three years, Oregon for four, is that not correct?

PINES: Correct,

LEHRER: And you think the experience in those two states backs up your basic position?

PINES: Absolutely. In addition, so many studies have been done. We all lived with the returnable container, so many years ago, we`d have no reason not to believe that it will be as successful again as it once was. Europe has a returnable system; in Canada it`s a great success. In addition, we anticipate the savings of enormous valuable resources here in this country. In fact, if a national bottle bill were passed, we would save over seven million tons of glass, two million tons of steel and 500,000 tons of aluminum. We can`t afford it any longer. The industry`s motto of "make it, use it, throw it away" is no longer affordable by the Massachusetts public or by the American public.

LEHRER: Thank you very much. Robin?

MacNEIL: Bruce Wright is Executive Director and President of the Massachusetts Wholesalers and Malt Brewers Association and Chairman of the Committee to Protect Jobs and the Use of Convenience Containers. That`s the organization which is leading the opposition to the bottle initiative and which represents manufacturers and unions in Massachusetts in the beverage and container industries. Mr. Wright, why are manufacturers and unions opposing this initiative so strongly and spending so much money to fight it? I`ve seen reports that it may result in expenditures of up to two million dollars by Election Day.

BRUCE WRIGHT: I think it`ll probably fall far short of two million dollars, Bob, but the reason that we`re fighting it so hard is that we just heard the proponent of the legislation indicate that they expect that there would be additional jobs created in Massachusetts; they expect that lower taxes might be one of the benefits of this legislation. In fact, jobs would be lost in Massachusetts -that`s why we have such a unified position from management and labor. AFofL-CIO in this state, Teamsters locals in this state are all in support of a "No" vote on question 6.

MacNEIL: Which jobs will be lost?

WRIGHT: The jobs specifically that will be directly affected immediately after passage would be those in the manufacturing end in Massachusetts. When we try to compare an Oregon or a Vermont with a Massachusetts we`re comparing the proverbial apple and the orange. Massachusetts is an industrialized state, as is Michigan, for instance. We have manufacturing facilities in our state -- we have can and glass manufacturing facilities; we have canning plants, we have 67 some-odd soft-drink bottlers independent bottlers -in our state. Those are the jobs that would be directly affected by passage of this legislation, and they`re estimated to run as high as 1100, 1200 Fray State families that would be out of business, that would be out of jobs with passage of this legislation.

MacNEIL: What about all the other benefits that Representative Pines claimed the initiative would carry?

WRIGHT: One of the more specific ones that were related to by Ms. Pines was the fact that there would be lower taxes in Massachusetts -- we`ve heard that before. We have an incumbent governor sitting in office right now who`s been there for some two years who promised that there would be no new taxes some two years ago. As a matter of Fact, made it a lead-pipe cinch. $500 million later we all found out that there was no such lead-pipe cinch, that there were going to be new taxes; it`s preposterous to indicate that there would be lower taxes with passage of the bottle and can bill. One of the things that would happen is that the property taxes that are paid by the industries that are in the state of Massachusetts would be lost to our state; the employment taxes that are paid by these companies, the excise taxes that are paid by these companies would be lost in Massachusetts.

MacNEIL: Wouldn`t it result in the creation of other jobs as the emphasis shifted to recycling or re-use of bottles, that supermarkets and others -- retailers -- had to perhaps employ more people, rearrange their facilities for the return, and so on?

WRIGHT: That`s a key point, Bob. If the bottle and can bill provided for any recycling measure, any resource recovery measures, there may be some value to it; but it does not provide for any recycling, it provides. for no resource recovery systems in the bottle bill, it does not penalize the litterer. What happens is that the jobs that would be created -- there would be some jobs created, this is inevitable -- those jobs are low-end-- They`re sorting, stacking, washing bottles in the supermarket or in the grocery stores, and what we`re doing is we`re substituting a head-of- household type income -- the head of the family -- for one of his daughters or sons who may be fortunate enough to pick up minimum wage by unloading bottles and cans at a supermarket. We don`t think that`s an equitable trade-off.

MacNEIL: What about the savings in energy, though, and in raw materials that go into the manufacture?

WRIGHT: The Department of Commerce study which came out in October of 1975 indicated that the total beverage industry in this country utilizes one half of one percent of all the energy utilized in this nation. Now, what we`re talking about is taking a look at litter, and beverage containers, which represent 20 to 25 percent of that litter and the energy that they use to be produced -- singling out that segment and indicating that that`s who we`ll attack. We`re using the proverbial rifle approach when we should be using the shotgun. Let`s attack the whole problem; let`s not just stay with just one portion of it.

MaCNEIL: Okay, we`ll come back.

WRIGHT: Great.

MaCNEIL: Congressman James Jeffords is a Republican from Vermont and a member of the House Agriculture and Education and Labor Committee. He was the prime sponsor of the national Beverage Container Re-use and Recycling Act of 1976, which did not pass. Vermont is one of the two states which has its own bottle bill, as Jim mentioned. Congressman, you want a national bill. Why?

JAMES JEFFORDS: Well, first I think when it`s all over tonight if people will just remember that Vermont does have it, it has worked beautifully, and if it works in Vermont at all it`s going to be just great for the rest of the country. I want it for many of the reasons that have already been expressed; first, the energy savings. We can save around 80,000 barrels of oil -- enough oil, or enough energy, for instance, to furnish all the electricity for the cities of New York and Chicago. Resource reductions -- the use of aluminum, that`s already been mentioned, as Lois brought out. Consumer savings -and this is one thing which has been so totally distorted in the advertisements of the opponents to the bill. In Vermont, we are recognizing now viable savings to the consumer; for those people using refillable bottles, for instance, we computed the other day that a family that uses refillable bottles for Coke-and for beer will save about an average of $60 per family, which is totally different from the picture that`s been given to the people in Massachusetts.

MacNEIL: You mean because it costs the manufacturers more to make new cans and bottles all the time, and they pass that on in higher retail prices?

JEFFORDS: Exactly. And it`s amazing, because before the committees of Congress you get two stories from the same people. They go before a committee where they want something from them, and they say it will result in billions of dollars of savings to the consumers if you go to refillables; and then they go across the hall and they talk to another one and say it`s going to cost money. But it`s obvious it`s going to save money, because the costs overall are less, and it`s bound to save the consumer money.

MacNEIL: What experience have you had in Vermont in terms of littering on the highways and in terms of jobs -- the effect on jobs -- in Vermont?

JEFFORDS: As far as the highway litter goes, it`s reduced it substantially. And I tell you, you just look out your window, you don`t even have to see where the borders are; you know when you go from Massachusetts to Vermont. You go from bottles to clean countryside. With respect to jobs, I do have to admit, we lost one job in Vermont, and that was the opponent -- the one that was trying to fight the bill; he lost his job, got fired. But overall, there`s been an increase in employment in Vermont. But I`d have to be fair and say it`s a different situation, because...

MacNEIL: He`s right, there aren`t any bottle manufacturing concerns in Vermont.

JEFFORDS: No, there aren`t, so we have picked up jobs. But the FEA has done a study, and I think they`re quite correct, because if you go to refillables, and recycling and re-using, you`re going to a labor-intensive, capital-intensive method rather than a resource energy intensive area, so you`re going to find an increase, according to the FEA, of around 117,000 jobs...

MacNEIL: What about the point that the opponents make? The FEA, the Federal Energy Administration, says in a study I think you`re quoting that based on a re-use rate of ten times for each bottle, but the opponents, the bottle manufacturers say you can only use a bottle two times, on average.

JEFFORDS: Well, the averages are somewhere -- we`d anticipate ten -- I think the return rates now on those are about five.

MacNEIL: So ten is an unrealistic estimate.

JEFFORDS: I`m not so sure it`s unrealistic; I think it can be done, but the experience I think has been a little lower than that. They expect it can go to ten, but even if you reduce it some, you still get tremendous savings, and you still get an increase in jobs, not a decrease in jobs.

MaCNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, let`s talk about jobs in detail for a few minutes, because that apparently is really one of the major issues in Massachusetts, and that`s the reason organized labor and everybody....

Well, first of all, Representative Pines, how do you respond to Mr. Wright`s contention that, okay, there may be, you say, 1400 jobs, but they`re going to be a lower level job than the jobs that are going to be eliminated as a result of this?

PINES: I`d say that that`s not true. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, a very prestigious institution known throughout the country, in their study, which took a year and a half to complete, indicated that job for job, job lost for job gained, they would be at the same level. The people who are making cans and bottles who would be now washing bottles will be paid the same union wages -the same rate of pay -- as the people who were previously making throwaway containers. And an issue that hasn`t been mentioned is the loss of jobs that has taken place over the last few years in Massachusetts since the industry perpetrated the throwaway upon us. In Massachusetts we`ve lost over 3,000 jobs because industry has been allowed to centralize out of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It became more efficient for them to manufacture in one site, in a centralized location. They were able to ship their bottles and cans into Massachusetts for Massachusetts to get rid of in its solid-waste landfill. And if we continue with this throwaway society, and throwaway bottles and cans, we will continue to lose significant numbers of jobs in our Commonwealth. We very much believe that if, in fact, the initiative is adopted by the people we will generate many more jobs in trucking and in bottle-washing as well as in the retail sector. In addition, we anticipate that a new recycling industry would be established in western Massachusetts, which would accommodate not only Massachusetts, but all of New England.

LEHRER: Mr. Wright. WRIGHT: Hello. LEHRER: No, what?

WRIGHT: Oh, I said hello. I thought you had a question for me, Jim.

LEHRER: Yes, to respond to what the Representative has just said.

WRIGHT: There is nothing that indicates that there is going to be a recycling industry located in western Massachusetts or anyplace else -- it`s not called for in this legislation. But let`s address a couple of things that you related to, Jim, particularly about the jobs. We just received some additional news today in the Boston press that Digital Corporation is going to do some additional expanding of their operations, but it won`t be in Massachusetts because of the business climate in Massachusetts -- that of being so poor to business. Just last week we also heard from Data General, who indicated that they are also going to do some expansion; it won`t be in Massachusetts, however, it will be in North Carolina. These are the kinds of problems which the residents of Massachusetts are facing, and now we`re taking one more industry and sending it a message; the message is, "We don`t want you. Take your business and your jobs someplace else."

LEHRER: But Mr. Wright, Representative Pines` point is just the opposite, that more jobs will be created as a result of this; and what about the point that she made that the centralization under non-returnable cans and bottles and as a matter of fact is true, is it not, that the bottling industry has centralized and that the local bottler has pretty well gone out of business. By the use of returnable bottles it would bring him back into business, and all that kind of thing -- how do you respond to that basic argument as it relates to this particular issue?

WRIGHT: Good point, Jim; and as I indicated earlier, there are 67 soft- drink bottlers -- independent bottlers -- left in Massachusetts. 50 of them are still producing returnable containers. But with respect to the beverage industry, the manufacturing end, that`s all new industry in Massachusetts. The can- and glass-making facilities that have been located in Massachusetts are as recent as the last two years, three, sometimes four years. The former governor of Massachusetts, who is now out advocating the proponents` position on this legislation, in 1973 welcomed with open arms Owens, Illinois into Mansfield, Massachusetts and the five or six hundred new jobs that it was going to bring to Massachusetts. These are all recent acquisitions; it`s a growing industry in our state, and one which shouldn`t be dealt this death blow.

LEHRER: Well, do you concede the long-term point, or do you agree with Representative Pines that over the long run that this would, in fact, create more jobs?

WRIGHT: The only jobs that it will create in Massachusetts are similar to those that have been created in the other areas where the bill has been enacted, and those are low-end jobs; those are stacking, and sorting, and pulling bottles out of bags, and trying to clean them up and keep them sanitary, under sanitary conditions, in a supermarket.

LEHRER: Okay, that`s what I wanted to establish. You are diametrically opposed, you say...

WRIGHT: Oh, sure. The job loss has been documented by the AFofL-CIO and the Teamsters in Massachusetts. Let`s get back to one point of contention on the job issue. Mr. Jeffords indicated that jobs were created in Vermont. Let`s mention that along the border that he referred to, that between New Hampshire and Vermont, beer sales alone dropped 49 percent the first year that bill was in effect in that state. Those jobs -- if that happened in Massachusetts -- those are Teamster jobs, people who are driving that product to a retail store. We have enough of a problem with our residents in New Hampshire right now, with an anti-competitive situation, price-wise; we open that up to the Rhode Island border and the Connecticut border as well as the New York border, those are additional Teamster jobs and the Teamsters in Massachusetts are very well aware of that fact.

LEHRER: All right.

WRIGHT: Secondly, Mr. Jeffords made a point about pricing in Vermont. The competitive pricing is this: a free...

LEHRER: We`ll get up to that right now. Robin?

MacNEIL: On prices, will the prices for the consumer go up or go down as a result...

WRIGHT: Absolutely have to go up; there is no way in the world, and that is an indefensible position that the proponents have tried to argue.

MacNEIL: Why, when it presumably, by pure logic, costs manufacturers less to manufacture bottles which are re-used than to manufacture new ones?

WRIGHT: Well, first of all, we have to crank in the deposit costs, okay? That`s a fee that`s indisputable; they`re going to have to pay the additional fee for the deposits. What happens with the returnable system is that it creates, on the grocery level, those low-end types of jobs -- it creates handling, storing and stacking problems in those markets. For instance, the Department of Health in Massachusetts has come up and indicated that the supermarkets -some 700 supermarkets in our state -- will be required to build additional storage facilities just to handle stored containers, because we`ve upgraded health and sanitation codes to such an extent that today they wouldn`t allow those insect-infested containers back in the store.

MacNEIL: Let me shorten your argument a bit, because I want to get the others in. Your point is that if the retailers have to do this they will have to pass that price on to the consumer.

WRIGHT: Absolutely, as they have in Oregon and Vermont.

MacNEIL: Congressman, in Vermont did they do that?

JEFFORDS: No. His arguments are totally fallacious, not based on fact. Let us take an example. For instance, let`s take the EPA Study that just came out comparing the costs of beverages right now between Massachusetts and Vermont, taking away the taxes and the deposit; you come down to the fact that beer in Vermont is selling on an average, for your premium beers, ten cents less a six-pack. If you go to refillables, it`s 30 to 40 cents less a six-pack. Also, the soft drinks are selling for less in Vermont than they are in Massachusetts; in fact, one Massachusetts bottler who makes soft `drinks is now really doing well because he`s into Vermont with his refillable bottles and is doing extremely well. And let`s go back to the other statements he said about our drop in beer consumption. Actually, there was no significant drop in beer consumption; our whole economy went down slightly, but it`s increased more than it went down. And as far as the border goes, we all have problems with New Hampshire -- they undercut us, their taxes are less, and they have other gimmicks to undercut us -- but relative to New Hampshire, whereas we had a 30-cent per six-pack differential before the bottle ban went into effect, using refillable bottles now that differential is only six cents, and that`s based upon taxes and other gimmicks they have to sell their beer...

MacNEIL: Okay, we clearly have a difference of opinion there, and I don`t think we`re going to resolve that this evening. I`d like to go on to another aspect of this from the consumer`s point of view; Representative Pines, can the law make the consumer and industry give up the undoubted convenience of the throwaway society that you quoted a while ago?

PINES: Well, we think it can. We think that the financial incentive that`s built into the deposit system will encourage people to return their bottles and cans and secure their deposit, and not to litter and not to dump the cans and bottles outside of their cars because in fact there will be a financial incentive not to do that. It`s obvious that the deposit system has worked in Oregon and Vermont; the people have been very supportive of it. Recent polls in both those states indicate over 94 percent support from the consumers. I believe the consumers of Massachusetts do, in fact, appreciate what`s at stake here. It`s conservation, natural resources; and allowing the industry to perpetrate upon us what`s profitable and convenient for them -- not what`s best for the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, not what`s best for our country as a whole.

MacNEIL: Mr. Wright?

WRIGHT: The financial incentive that the Bottle Bill provides is one that you can get your own money back after you`ve laid it down. You can wash the container, you can store it, then bring it back and get your money back. I don`t think that`s really any financial incentive. The increased costs come on those containers that I`ve just indicated -- they`re going to cost more money. By the way, Vermont`s pricing, if anybody wants to check it -- I suggest that Mr. Jeffords do just this -- because both states, Vermont and Massachusetts, require posting of their beer prices in particular; a comparably priced product of beer -- a premium priced product of beer -- would $5.50 in Massachusetts today as opposed to $6.09 in Vermont, plus $1.26 deposit. That`s no financial incentive for the consumers of Massachusetts, particularly when we`re trying to swap minimal litter benefits for disastrous economic results.

MacNEIL: Thank you.

WRIGHT: Yes, sir.

MaCNEIL: Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, a lot has been said on this issue that, particularly the states of Michigan and Massachusetts, however they go could really dictate how the country goes; Congressman, how do you feel about that -- how crucial are the votes in those two states in terms of a national movement, one way or the other?

JEFFORDS: I would hope that if we can just win one of the four we`ll have enough momentum to carry us forward, because of the large distortion which everyone is aware of with respect to the advertising that`s gone on and the knowledge that around the country about 73 percent of the people, before they`re exposed to the distortion in the ads and the lobbying practices, are in favor of it. We`ve had a movement forward just now with the EPA going into our defense installations and moving them into the same kind of a system; so far, every area that has tried it has liked it. You can try Vermont, Oregon, but also they tried it out in Yosemite National Park; it worked very well out there. With one victory, I think we`ll be on our way - - of course, the more we get, the better off we are.

LEHRER: Mr. Wright, would you agree with that analysis from your point of view, that if they win one of these four -- particularly Michigan or Massachusetts -- that your industry`s in trouble on this issue?

WRIGHT: Well, I wouldn`t like to see us lose any of them, quite frankly, Jim, and...

LEHRER: I`m saying "If."

WRIGHT: If they were to win one of them?

LEHRER: Yes.

WRIGHT: I would think that it would argue well for the proponents, but I think that, as Mr. Jeffords has just indicated, once the consumers are exposed to an educational and an informative campaign based upon what actually will happen to them with respect to job losses and increased consumer prices, they inevitably turn this referendum question down. Eight times it`s been before the voters in this country, and eight times it`s been rejected. We think that the residents of Massachusetts, Michigan, Colorado and Maine will all do the same thing November 2, and they will reject this discriminatory legislation.

LEHRER: What`s your prediction on what`s going to happen November 2 in your state:

PINES: We believe that the citizens of the Commonwealth will see through the false and misleading ads that have been put upon them by the industry from out-of-state industry`s funds, and we anticipate that the voters of Massachusetts will solidly support this initiative.

LEHRER: On that note of agreement, Robin, it`s all yours.

MacNEIL: Thank you very much, all of you. I think obviously we`ll have found one cure for the allege`. voter apathy in this election, and that is to take to the bottle. Jim and I will be back tomorrow night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.