Container Deposits: New Homeless Initiative to Raise Bottle Deposits

While preparing to write this article, a headline came up from the online news source The Onion: "New homeless initiative to raise bottle deposit to 12 cents." Despite complaints from protesters, this should be in effect by mid-November, 2007.

Currently, only eleven states have container deposits. When it first began, more than two decades ago, the primary reason was citizens' growing concern for the environment-- charging people a few extra cents per can or bottle resulted in consumers returning the containers in order to receive the refund, which in turn led to less litter on highways and in other public areas. Both the lessening of litter and consumers wanting their money back are good reasons to care about the status of the deposit laws.

However, the article in the Onion was the first I'd seen the issue of homelessness addressed in the interest of container laws. As I currently reside in an area where there is a very large population of homeless people, I'm fully aware of the topics brought up in the Onion. But before reading it, I'd planned to address yet another side of this issue: that during the last year or so, more and more stores are refusing to accept bottles and cans for refund, or putting ridiculous limits on the number of containers which can be redeemed at a time.

For people who consume large quantities of these products, it is not only unfair but extremely inconvenient to be told that no more than a dollar's worth of containers can be returned at a time; but what is an even worse part of this new policy is that people who have depended on collecting cans and bottles for extra money are now being denied this option, as well as frequently being treated in a very rude manner by store personnel when they attempt to cash in containers. Until some local stores began this new policy, it was a common occurrence to see people toting large plastic bags of cans and bottles to nearby stores. It seems there is no legitimate reason whatsoever for stores to have this policy-- denying people, many of whom are vets, a few dollars in exchange for cans and bottles. Many in this area count on that little bit of "extra" to buy coffee, cigarettes, etc., and they are usually not in a position of being able to haul quantities of containers to the large supermarkets which, at this point anyway, do not have a limit on the amount one can be refunded.

Bravo to Representative Cardin and the Subcommittee on Human Resources for finally recognizing these issues and for bringing it to the national level. Perhaps some people will complain about having to pay an extra few cents each time they purchase products in deposit-for-return containers, even while knowing full well they can get their money back if they do not feel it to be too much of an "inconvenience" to return the containers; but the real issue which continues to stand is convincing one's local "convenience stores" that placing quotas on the return of cans and bottles is unfair. Perhaps we should consider boycotting the establishments which have such a policy.