5/12/08|Defining a (close to) ideal bottle bill
As we’ve mentioned before, FIJI Water is advocating for expansion of container deposit laws. The evidence shows that they boost recycling rates. But some bottle bills work better than others, and as with most things in life there’s always room for improvement no matter how good you are.†So we’d†love to hear your thoughts on what would make a good container deposit law – or for that matter, what makes a bad one.
†
Here are some facts about what container deposit laws†do well:
- The 11 states in the U.S. that have such laws account for 60% of recycling activity†in the nation. Michigan, with a 10-cent deposit, has recycling rates close to 100%.
- The deposit amounts are sufficient to motivate people to recycle, but not so high as to make prices prohibitive.
- Customers who purchase recycled plastics, such as carpet manufacturers, have found that bottle bill states provide better quality material. With deposit laws, people sort plastics more carefully so there’s less contamination from non-recyclables or between different types of plastic.
But there are also some issues with current bottle bills. To name a few:
- We think an incentive program should cover all recyclable materials. The point is to improve recycling rates and reduce what goes to landfill, right? But the materials currently subject to container deposit laws form an odd hodgepodge. Several bills cover soft drinks but not bottled water. Many bills don’t cover non-beverage containers, such as shampoo bottles or food jars. The California bill covers water bottles and beer cans, but not wine bottles or “100% fruit juice in containers 46 ounces or more.” (You’d think it would be easy to subject wine bottles to a deposit – wine is pricey enough that another 5-10¢ won’t make a difference, even if you’re buying Two-Buck Chuck. And a big juice bottle has more plastic or glass than a small juice bottle, so isn’t it even more important to recycle? But I digress…)
- Who should keep the unclaimed deposits? Distributors often pay much of the cost of managing a container return system, so they may want to lay claim to these funds to help make up the costs. But some states argue that unclaimed deposits represent “abandoned property” and therefore belong to the state.
- What type of container return†infrastructure is best?†Some states collect containers via retailers, others through redemption centers. While retailers are convenient for consumers,†redemption centers keep retail stores from becoming collection sites for used packaging.
Perhaps we can think more creatively and go beyond the traditional bottle bill structure. Should there be a heavier price on landfill-bound†trash, instead of (or along with) recycling incentives? In Switzerland, for example, recycling is free but throwing away trash is costly – at least $2/bag. As a result, they’ve achieved phenomenal recycling rates, such as 80% for plastic PET bottles.
†
Another possibility is a federal container deposit law, such as†the Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act of 2007 introduced by Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey into the U.S. House of Representatives on November 15.†This would provide for a 5¢ deposit on every beverage container sold in the U.S.
†
It’s also important to make recycling easy. Today, only about 50% of American households have access to curbside recycling programs. Curbside recycling programs and single-stream recycling (i.e., you can put all recyclables into one bin, instead of separating paper, glass, plastic, etc.) have been shown to boost recycling rates too.
†
There’s a lot to consider here, so please share your thoughts on how best to improve recycling rates.
Betty McLaughlin says:
May 14th, 2008 at 10:24 am
We couldn’t agree more – with your observation that container deposits work remarkably well to achieve high participation rates and high quality material, as well as your call to get all interested parties talking about solutions. EPA and state governments recognize recycling as an important tool for combating climate change because of the huge energy savings that can be realized using recycled material vs. virgin in manufacturing. It is well past time to keep keep discussing container deposit legislation only in terms of solid waste management. One of the reasons that deposit systems have targeted beverage containers is the nature of the product itself, and its consumption patterns. Unlike shampoo bottles, beverage containers are more likely to be emptied away from home (at least 1/3 of all beverages sold, according to calculations by the American Beverage Association). These “on the go” containers are not captured by curbside collection programs, so the financial incentive of the deposit helps encourage consumers to return them to retailers for their refund. We understand that retailers don’t like the added responsibility of taking back empty containers, but this is an important service they provide to their customers. And since most shoppers return empties when they are going to the store to buy groceries and, probably, more beverages, no extra trips are needed, making this leg of the collection process free of added costs or additional greenhouse gas emissions. Beverages, because they are thin enough liquid to be drinkable, are easily rinsed clean with minimal amounts of water (unlike spaghetti sauce, for instance) so retailers can help the process by asking their customers to rinse their empties before returning them. Retailers have been providing this service in some deposit states for years, and they should be commended for their contributions to container recycling, and compensated financially with fair handling fees that keep pace with inflation. We hope that the retail industry will recognize this valuable contribution they make in the recycling chain since they are an important link. This contribution should be taken into account when carbon credits are considered, as should the recycling efforts made by the beverage industry, and the processors and end users who use recycled content in their products and packaging. Like you, we believe it is time to consider container deposits for the positive results they achieve, and to put aside old arguments and antagonism. We should all be working together for a nationwide container deposit system that is a world model for producer responsibility and sustainability that will make the beverage industry and the retail industry proud of their leadership in capturing as close to 100% of the containers they put into the marketplace as is practicably possible.
Thank you for your leadership in calling for this dialog. When do we start?
Sincerely yours,
Betty McLaughlin
Executive Director
CONTAINER RECYCLING INSTITUTE
Sara Melnicoff says:
May 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I applaud Fiji for their efforts to find ways to reduce the number of items making that dreaded one way trip to the landfill. People are hungry for ways to dispose of their containers for recycling. That hunger is growing more each day. We need to make it as easy as possible. That’s why having a container deposit system in place would work miracles.
We need to pull out all the stops – user drop offs, curbside pick up and bottle bills working together will make a huge difference to the environment all down the line.
I truly don’t understand why more producers aren’t actively seeking solutions, like Fiji is. They would reap the benefits of a type of publicity beyond anything currently known to man. People want this so much, they would choose one brand over another if they knew it was being collected for recycling.
Maybe Fiji can work out some sort of buy back program to get the ball rolling?
As Ms. McLaughlin said above, “When do we start?”
Sara Melnicoff
Solutions
Moab, UT
Amy says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I couldn’t agree more!! Unfortunately I live in a state without a deposit law, and living in a rural area, there is no curbside recycling. I do have bins in which to seperate recyclable things, but a lot of times when I do take it to be recycled, there is no room. I doubt that if I drop it off with so much workload that they actually recycle it. Sometimes I wonder if they don’t just throw it away!!! I think that landfill trash should be more costly and the means to recycle be a lot easier!!
Thanks so much for all the information and all that you do!!
Lukas says:
June 4th, 2008 at 9:52 am
This is just a smokescreen. The fact is, you people ship water half way around the planet to people who already have potable water. If you can fool people into thinking you are some kind of environmental company when your primary purpose is to ship water half way around the planet to people who already have potable water then I have to give you credit for being clever. But anybody with even a lick of sense can see the scam you are pulling. You are just another greedy corporation trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes while you do something that is environmentally and morally unconscionable – shipping water half way around the planet to people who already have potable water for a profit. The sooner you go out of business, the better off this world will be. Thanks for your role in destroying the planet!
Linda says:
June 5th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Fascinating statistic about Michigan! I live in rural Virginia and we don’t have curbside recycling. I wonder if the gas we use to drive to the recycling dumpsters negates the benefits of recycling.
I disagree with the people who lambaste bottled water. Don’t they read the news reports about contaminated water? And for those of us who travel, we can only carry so much water (and none when we fly). It’s far healthier to buy and drink water than it is to get soft drinks.