Spring Break
The Daily OrangeSen. Bruno botched N.Y.'s Bottle Bill
By Kevin Eggleston
Posted: 4/14/08, 10:50 PM EST Section: Opinion
Despite the fact that the movement for the bottle bill has generated massive grassroots support, NYPIRG has been disappointed during recent and past budget deliberation processes as the Republican Majority Leader, Sen. Joseph Bruno, worked to successfully prevent the passage of the Bigger Better Bottle Bill.
"While NYPIRG is a nonpartisan group, it sticks true to this in everything we do, it can accurately be said that it is the Republicans in the Senate, under the strong guidance of Bruno, who are blocking this measure," said SU sophomore Chad Brookeand.
Republicans in the state Senate have opposed the Bigger Better Bottle Bill since it was proposed in 2002. The Albany Times Union quoted Bruno in an article published April 2 saying the bill is "prohibitive to consumers."
Perhaps Bruno failed to understand that when it comes to excessive water bottle consumption, consumer prohibition may be part of the point. More likely, however, he realized passing the bill would be prohibitive to Republican fundraising. State Senate Republicans received $300,000 in donations from the bill's opponents in 2007, according to the Albany Times Union.
Brooker looked at these campaign contributions and observed, "This money will surely come in handy for reelection campaigns, but at a cost: the degradation of New York's landscape, habitats and environments."
If Bruno and Senate Republicans shoot down the bill again, they will have a plastic albatross around their neck. With the number of plastic bottles thrown away in New York state alone, their burden is a heavy one. It's time for Captain Bruno and his crew of Senate Republicans to realize their folly before it is too late.
As for everyone else, before there really is plastic, plastic everywhere, think about trying that classic source of water: the sink.
"While NYPIRG is a nonpartisan group, it sticks true to this in everything we do, it can accurately be said that it is the Republicans in the Senate, under the strong guidance of Bruno, who are blocking this measure," said SU sophomore Chad Brookeand.
Republicans in the state Senate have opposed the Bigger Better Bottle Bill since it was proposed in 2002. The Albany Times Union quoted Bruno in an article published April 2 saying the bill is "prohibitive to consumers."
Perhaps Bruno failed to understand that when it comes to excessive water bottle consumption, consumer prohibition may be part of the point. More likely, however, he realized passing the bill would be prohibitive to Republican fundraising. State Senate Republicans received $300,000 in donations from the bill's opponents in 2007, according to the Albany Times Union.
Brooker looked at these campaign contributions and observed, "This money will surely come in handy for reelection campaigns, but at a cost: the degradation of New York's landscape, habitats and environments."
If Bruno and Senate Republicans shoot down the bill again, they will have a plastic albatross around their neck. With the number of plastic bottles thrown away in New York state alone, their burden is a heavy one. It's time for Captain Bruno and his crew of Senate Republicans to realize their folly before it is too late.
As for everyone else, before there really is plastic, plastic everywhere, think about trying that classic source of water: the sink.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Catherine Burke-Plumadore
posted 4/15/08 @ 9:56 AM EST
Even if there's no deposit, the bottles can still be recycled. On campus, it's a matter of putting the bottle in the slot marked "plastic," or "bottles" rather than the one marked "trash" in those rectangular, beige receptacles. (Continued…)
paul
posted 5/06/08 @ 2:22 PM EST
If this so called bigger, better, bottle bill is truly about the environmnt then these so-called envirinmentalists would not need the unclaimed deposits. (Continued…)
J
posted 5/13/08 @ 1:05 PM EST
This is just a tax on consumers in two ways: (1) Beverage companies are going to have to re-coup their increased costs - guess how - by increasing the price of their products; (2) Keeping the unclaimed deposits for the environmental groups is so more property can be purchased by them - and guess what - taken off the tax roles. (Continued…)
Post a Comment