Thursday, March 30, 2006

Article in Memphis Commercial Appeal by Guest Contributor

This article is so biased and is so full of inaccuracies that I can't believe that any reputable paper would print it.

Here is an example:

"The bureaucracy that results from container deposit laws is so great, the report (from Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, a consulting firm) says, that states with such laws pay $4.24 per container recovered."

Let us only look at Michigan for a moment. In 2000 Michigan's bottle bill captured 3.871 billion beverage containers (See MI Dept. of Environment Report). 3.871 billion multiplied by $4.24 = $16.41 Billion dollars. The ENTIRE Michigan State budget for 2006 is $40.49 billion. So, according to this guest at the paper, 40% of the ENTIRE Michigan budget would be spent on the Bottle Bill. Does anyone else see a problem with these numbers?

I urge the Commercial Appeal to ask Marge Davis from the Tennessee Bottle Bill Project to also write a guest article for the paper.


At 6:16 PM, Anonymous Bob from Northeast Tennessee said...

Are you noticing in all the bottle bill related articles where the beverage industry types always reference to the seemingly mythical "Gershman, Brickner & Bratton" consulting firm in Virginia and cite from the same section of the supposed study without disseminating the entire GBR bottle bill report to the public...?

At 11:46 AM, Anonymous Bob from Northeast Tennessee said...

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
Patended Mobile Sort System

image file:

"Mobile Sort System - The Mobile Sort System (MSS) provides an integrated loading, screening and sorting station through a state-of- the-art portable recycling system that allows onsite labor to more easily sort a higher percentage of the recoverable materials from mixed waste loads. The MSS combines a grapple for waste handling and loading, a screening system for fines removal, and a belt conveyor sorting platform that allows the removal / separation of recoverable materials from construction/demolition wastes including: wood, metal, brick/block, OCC, plastics, gypsum wallboard, and other marketable constituents. Sorting space is provided for up to eight sorters (four per side) along the picking conveyor with materials placed into bins located at grade, adjacent to their work stations.

Potential Locations & Uses:
Material Recovery Facilities
Transfer Stations
Demolition Projects
Stand Alone Mobile Facility"

What do you suppose that the effect would be of various state governments enacting container deposit ("bottle bill") legislation upon the sales of the Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Patended Mobile Sort System...? I suppose that utilizing the Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Patended Mobile Sort System for the recovery of aluminum cans from landfills would somewhat justifty the expenditure of tax dollars to purchase this expensive-looking equirment...

At 10:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found the study online at:

Comparitive costs are on page 27, with a citation to the Institute for Applied Research (separate study) for a 2002 study called "Cost Effectiveness of Litter Abatement Methods" - I couldn't find that one anywere.

IAR website -


Post a Comment

<< Home