Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceIn a domino-effect due to recent raids on recycling funds, supermarket recycling centers and other Buy Back Centers are closing statewide. It’s a hard time for recyclers and for consumers looking to get their nickel back for their used cans and bottles. Thankfully, for Santa Barbara at least, MarBorg waste management company pledges to weather the storm.
The Bottle Bill (AB 2020) was established in California in 1986. Under its terms, a CRV (container redemption value), usually a nickel, is included in the price of plastic and glass bottles. Consumers can then redeem their five-cent deposit by returning their empty containers to supermarket-based recycling centers, or other official Buy Back Centers, or they can donate it to a nonprofit recycling program. Consumers who drop off their containers in blue bins of curbside recycling programs are supporting those programs, as their CRV goes to the maintenance of that curbside program.
Consumers have, for years, been able to redeem used cans like these at recycling centers for a small amount of money.
The nickels that go “unredeemed” by the consumer are collected, by the Department of Conservation, into a fund that supports the convenient supermarket-based centers and other supplemental recycling programs. It’s a social contract: If the consumer pays a deposit on beverage containers, he or she will be able to refund it or donate it at a convenient location.
California’s recycling rate for containers has gone up from 60 percent to the current 85 percent in just four years, but what seems a fortunate statistic has unfortunate results for the Bottle Bill fund. It is perverse economics: The more successful the program, the less money it makes-money which is needed to sustain convenient recycling locations. Additionally, the scrap price of aluminum has gone down, which also contributes to the depletion of the Bottle Bill fund.
Santa Barbara residents, like this young man, will still be able to drop of recyclables at Marborg’s Buy Back Centers despite the statewide closure.
Recently, though, the fund has taken another, potentially fatal hit-this time from the California government. Authorizing a “loan” to the state’s general fund, Governor Schwarzenegger depleted the remaining $200 million recycling fund by $132 million, practically wiping out the recycling fund and recycling Buy Back Centers with it. There are over 2100 recycling centers in California, but already, since Jan ‘09, more than 60 recycling of them have closed their doors. “That number,” says Evan Edgar, principal engineer of the California Refuse Recycling Council, “can quickly and easily double,” resulting in lost jobs and less convenience. It’s a rough, rough time for recycling companies, and many California consumers looking to conveniently refund their CRV may be simply out of luck. A social contract has been breached.
But not in Santa Barbara. MarBorg waste management company refuses to close its Buy Back Centers. Because MarBorg deals with all waste-green waste, recyclables, and hazardous household waste-the company can afford to keep its Buy Back Centers open, even though MarBorg doesn’t profit from them. “There is no money in operating Buy Back Centers,” Mario Borgatello of MarBorg commented. “We operate two centers purely for the convenience of our customers.”
Social and community considerations were reportedly a large factor in the decision to keep the area buy back centers open.
In a phone interview, Borgatello confirmed his commitment to recycling and the Santa Barbara Community, saying: “We are sticking with it through thick and thin, good times and bad times. Right now is a really bad time, but we are recyclers; we do what we need to do. We won’t quit,” Borgatello pledged, “because Buy Back Centers are an integral part of the Bottle Bill and recycling. They also help the homeless community.”
“Mario is staying open because he understands the social contract,” Edgar elaborated, and can accommodate a recycling center because of the other services Marborg offers. MarBorg’s commitment to recycling and the consumer comes as a relief to the many who visit MarBorg’s Buy Back Centers: Before 3 p.m. this past Saturday, December 5, already 150 people had received their refunds on their bags of containers from the center at 20 David Love Place.
Previous Month
Comments
There is no CRV in AZ and people still recycle. It doesn't pay the same, but it still is a buck, and that is not as easy to come by nowadays.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
December 7, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Am I getting this right? California slapped a CRV on recyclables to encourage people not to throw their containers on the streets or in the wrong bin. The program worked. But it worked too well.
For one thing, I never knew that some entitity was getting money for the stray recyclble item that had gotten into my trash by mistake. And that the program was being funded by those who did not go to recycling centers.
I am a little bit upset by this. I saved those items, separated them and took them to the centers, thinking I was doing the RIGHT thing. the little bit of money was inconsequentual. Most times I forgot to turn the little chits in. All that work, for what? For the environment!! That is what it was for.
I did have friends who bragged about their five or ten bucks. Fine, not a problem, if an incentive is needed-- and offerred by our State.
And now our State is saying,sorry, but it is working too well. But they are not talking about taking the CRV surtax off, now, are they?
I applaud the Borgatellos as they have always been environmentally sound in their thinking and business ways. Mario understands a social contract, while Arnold just does not get it.
bajamama (anonymous profile)
December 7, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I love MarBorg, I think they do a great job.
In high school, i nearly survived on the CRV for bottles and cans, which in Michigan was .10• each..
greenbanana (anonymous profile)
December 8, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting subject. I like convinient recycling and if I pay an extra 5 cents I want it back. Tomrah is larger Co. that operates more Supermarket based centers.They did close center at Ralph's on De La Vina but still have one at La Cumbre behind Albebertson's.Problem is state raided funds like they raid all funds that are earmarked for special purposes.They shouldn't do that at all with any funds but they do. THey need to spend less or raise taxes. Taxing gasoline or desiel fuel more would be easiest but these seem to be sacred cows. I hear rumors about increase in CRV even higher and oppose it especially when money ends up in general fund to be missappropriated by state legislature.
rabbitrun (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
On a different note: Has anyone experienced recycling salvages recently? By that I mean, people digging through YOUR recycling bins taking stuff out and hauling it off?
CommonSense (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope that we can get at least some of our deposit back when we at last recycle our current governor.
Draxor (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ever heard of the phrase "with no vaseline"? Get ready to feel it Californians, because that is how you are going to get it from the state government.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
December 9, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This issue had an article on the homeless and what we can do for them. You can keep the buy back centers open since this is an industry for the homeless. Who has not seen our merchants of preservation digging through the trash barrel looking for items of interest and profit taking out of the barrel what would have gone to the land fill but now goes to the recycle bin? Saving California one bottle at a time. Thank and congratulate a homeless recycle entrepreneur as you would any other successful business person.
Bird (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)