Happy Saturday Friend,
Organizing Director Isabel Harper here! While our Executive Director, Scotia Hille, is away you’ll be hearing from me, our interns, and some volunteers in this Saturday’s and next Saturday’s Scoop.
This week, I am happy to announce Act on Mass’s endorsed candidates! They are as follows:
State House of Representatives:
Michael Lachenmeyer (12th Hampden)
Alison Leary (10th Middlesex)
Evan McKay (25th Middlesex)
Ravi Simon (13th Middlesex)
State Senate:
Daniel Lander (Suffolk and Middlesex)
Persis Yu (Norfolk and Suffolk)
Michael Zullas (Norfolk, Plymouth, and Bristol)
We are so stoked that so many candidates are running on transparency, and look forward to their allyship in making a Massachusetts State Legislature that works for everyone. I also want to extend a huge thank you to our volunteer endorsement committee for their dedication, insight, and collaboration.
And this is only our first round of endorsements! We are still conducting interviews, so keep an eye on your inbox in the coming weeks to see who else we will be supporting. That said, we need your help to get all these amazing candidates in office! Which brings me to my:
Vol Call!
Are you left guessing how your legislator really feels about the issues they ran on? Are you frustrated that after two years of the State Legislature being in session (full-time!) they have only passed 8 state-wide policy bills? Us too! Citizens of the Commonwealth have the power to change the culture on Beacon Hill by reminding our elected officials that they are beholden to us, not leadership. That is why we need more competitive races, and to elect more candidates that are dedicated to building a healthier democracy in our state. If any of the above candidates are in your district, or you just really like their message, please reach out to us! We are looking for volunteers to phonebank, knock on doors, attend campaign events, or otherwise get plugged in with these races in whatever way you’d like. If we can count your support, you can email info@actonmass.org.
State House Scoop
Last week, Act on Mass intern Oscar Gillette published There Need to be Political Consequences for Tram Nguyen’s Vote Against the Audit in The Andover News. It’s a great read, and I encourage everyone to check it out. Since the day it was introduced, Act on Mass and State Auditor Diana DiZoglio have been quick to point out the flawed language in H.5469. We will continue to call our legislators every Tuesday from 10:00-10:30am to urge the Senate to at least amend the bill, and if not, vote no. We have also been asking the Governor to veto the bill if it comes to her desk in its current form. We encourage you to do the same, using our resource kit here or registering for a phonebank here.
JOIN AOM TO PHONEBANK LEGISLATORS ON TUESDAY!>>
Blog Post
Now, for a little bit of background on me! I wrote this blog post for Act on Mass as a volunteer all the way back in November, and I’m so proud to be releasing it now as the Organizing Director. The bottle bill is an issue that’s particularly close to my heart, as my first experience in Massachusetts state-level organizing. It is also yet another example of a common-sense change that environmental groups have been advocating for for decades. In this case, the bottle bill expansion introduced every session is an update to Massachusetts’ landmark recycling law, and a recurring victim of perpetual legislative inertia. So without further ado:
Massachusetts Has the Worst Deposit Return Recycling Infrastructure in the Country
Because of the statehouse status quo, the “bottle bill” has been the same since the 80s. Cities and towns pay the price.
Despite campaigning on climate action, the Massachusetts State Legislature has failed year after year not only to deliver on that promise, but also on much of its legislative agenda. In 2023, Massachusetts passed fewer bills than any other state in the country. One particularly poignant example of widely popular, yet indefinitely stalled legislation is the bottle bill expansion.
Massachusetts has had the same return-based recycling infrastructure since 1983, despite the fact that attempting to divert plastics from landfills has become increasingly complicated over the last five decades. Nowadays, most beverage containers are made from multiple types of plastic, and unlike glass or aluminum, plastics are porous and easily contaminated. This makes conversion into new materials extremely difficult, and equivalent reuse for food-grade plastics practically impossible. As a result, a large share of material collected through curbside systems is ultimately burned, buried, or exported overseas.
This is the final stage of plastic’s toxic lifecycle. Plastic is an extractive industry that increases demand and reliance on fossil fuels. After extraction, virgin materials are produced at petrochemical facilities, such as those in Louisiana’s cancer alley, and then go on to litter streets and waterways. Even if they are placed in the blue bin, 95% of plastic still ends up perpetuating health and environmental hazards at disposal sites. But there is a better way. Bottle bills are the only recycling system that enables plastic bottles to actually be recycled. And as we (hopefully) move away from plastics, they are even more effective in recycling metal, aluminum, and glass.
Ironically, Massachusetts was once a pioneer of bottle bills. In 1983, the state adopted a redeemable five-cent deposit on bottles and cans through a deposit return system (DRS). Deposit return systems work by adding a small fee to qualifying beverage containers at purchase, which consumers receive back when they return the container to a redemption center. Through this system, beverage containers that would have otherwise ended up in a landfill or become roadside waste suddenly have value.
Unlike traditional single-stream curbside recycling, DRS separates and cleans recyclable materials after return, dramatically improving material quality and actual recyclability. Given that this requires collection, sorting, transport, and redemption infrastructure, bottle bills create, on average, 38 times as many jobs as curbside recycling. These are exactly the type of safe, clean, and local “green jobs” that Massachusetts has committed to creating. Redemption systems reduce pressure on municipal curbside programs, which are expensive, inefficient, and often create poor or even dangerous working conditions for sanitation workers. The money cities and towns would save under an expanded bottle bill could be redirected towards other priorities, such as education, housing, and parks. Despite these facts and widespread public support for expansion, the Massachusetts bottle bill has remained essentially unchanged since its inception.
In their strongest iterations, bottle bills do more than improve recycling rates. They create green jobs, reduce litter, and save municipalities money. But this system only works if consumers utilize it. This is why advocates are calling for Massachusetts to raise the deposit from five to ten cents. Clearly, five cents in 2026 doesn’t go as far as it did in 1983, and the higher the reward, the more likely consumers are to return eligible containers. In Michigan, a ten-cent deposit has helped produce return rates near 90%. By contrast, Massachusetts currently recovers only about 35% of deposit containers. A five-cent deposit and low redemption volume no longer cover operating costs, leading to the closure of redemption centers at an alarming rate. This creates a vicious cycle: fewer redemption centers make returns less convenient, which lowers redemption rates further, weakening the system even more.
Consumers are also less likely to make the trip to a redemption center if it isn’t intuitive which containers can be redeemed, or have to sort through their recycling to pull out inexplicable exemptions. The beverage aisle has changed dramatically in the five decades since the bottle bill was first passed. The number and type of recyclable containers on shelves have exploded, making it so that the current bottle bill only covers 42% of beverage containers. Notable exemptions include non-carbonated bottles of water, energy drinks, and nips.
Though Massachusetts was one of the first, of the ten bottle bill states we have the lowest percentage of eligible containers sold, lowest redemption price, and lowest return rate. Without bringing modern beverage packaging into the system and increasing the redemption rate, Massachusetts risks falling even further behind.
Each year, legislation is advanced to update the bottle bill, so why has no attempt ever gone the distance? One major reason is industry lobbying. Companies like Coca-Cola and Nestlé have spent millions opposing expansion. This session, Worcester-based Polar Beverages and The American Beverage Association have poured time and money into killing expansion efforts. The beverage industry doesn’t care for the Massachusetts bottle bill because it emphasizes public regulation rather than voluntary corporate control. When beverage companies set their own recycling targets or are written in as institutionally protected stakeholders in recycling policies, they can profit from the promise of environmental progress without adhering to any binding requirements. A great example of this is Connecticut’s 2021 bottle bill expansion. They change targets, delay implementation, deflect responsibility, and pass on the true cost on to the taxpayer.
Like so many environmental challenges, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Solutions already exist; what is missing is the political will to implement them, and implement them well. Massachusetts committed to a system that works decades ago. Now it needs to modernize that system to meet the moment. But, there is reason for optimism! The farthest an expansion has made in recent history is the Ways and Means Committee, the final stop before a floor vote, a milestone it cleared back in April. This was, of course, before being unceremoniously sent to study (aka a polite way to kill the bill.) But still, progress is progress and advocates can build on this momentum next session. If you’d like to see expansion move forward, you can check who your State Senators and Representatives are here, and let them know that you’d like to see a version of S.2245 or H.3464 pass next session. In the meantime, organizing with neighbors, local officials, and municipal public works departments does wonders to send the message to Beacon Hill that city funds should be invested in community priorities, not wasted propping up ineffective and outdated curbside recycling.
What we’re reading this week
Great reporting and writing from around the Bay State this week!
- Immigrants share stories of being detained and deported at Chelsea gathering by Sarah Betancourt for GHB
- New Mass. graduation requirements would include course exams, capstone project by Suevon Lee for WBUR
- House committee strips Senate policy plans from environmental bond by Colin Young for State House News Service
- Reactions pour in to SJC’s ruling on income tax cut ballot question from State House News Service
Missed a Scoop or two? You can find a full archive of all past Saturday Scoops on our blog.
Take Action
ACTIVIST TOOLKIT: Will your Rep sign the pledge?
We are looking to get as many legislators to sign on ahead of next session as we can, and we need your help! Here is an activist toolkit for the Pledge, including a summary, outreach guide, and detailed breakdown of each ask.
After legislators sign on, we are planning on using this Pledge as an organizing tool to push for specific, actionable, common-sense lawmaking practices. So spread the word! We are also currently looking for organizations to cosponsor the Pledge, so if you’d be interested you can find more information here or email me at isabel@actonmass.org.
ASK YOUR REP TO SIGN THE PLEDGE>>
Thanks for reading and for supporting Act on Mass! Have a great weekend.
Isabel
Isabel Harper (she/her)
Organizing Director, Act on Mass