Although
support for deposit
laws is widespread, there are some groups, especially members of
the beverage production and retail industries, that consistently try to prevent
bottle bills from being passed or expanded, as well as attempt to repeal
existing deposit laws. A sampling of these groups
is available here.
In addition to spending
huge sums of money
to defeat deposit legislation, these opponents have also tried to
sway public opinion in their favor. Their arguments concentrate on the
increased costs to bottlers, distributors and retailers, which they claim result
in higher prices to consumers. They also contend that bottle bills reduce sales
and eliminate jobs in the container manufacturing industry. More recently, they
have argued that municipal recycling programs are a more comprehensive means of
reducing solid waste and that bottle bills ‘rob’ curbside recycling programs of
the valuable aluminum beverage cans, thereby reducing program revenues.
These arguments are not true! The
following is a list of common arguments made by bottle bill opponents, followed
by facts that support the case for bottle bills
|
Myth |
Fact |
| Deposit
systems target only a small part of the waste stream (less than 3% of
municipal solid waste (MSW) by weight). |
While
soda containers constitute only 2.7% of the waste stream, all beverage
containers (excluding milk containers) are 4.4% of the waste stream
(1).
More important, the upstream environmental effects of container wasting are
disproportionately high. For example, beverage containers account for 20% of
the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from landfilling a ton of MSW and
replacing the wasted products with new products made from virgin materials.
(2)
|
| Deposit
systems address a small portion of litter: 7 to 25 percent. |
- Beverage
containers comprise 40-60% of litter. The Solid Waste Coordinators of
Kentucky found that 58% of litter collected consisted of beverage
containers, pull tabs, and closures.
(3)
- Deposit laws
significantly reduce container litter AND other types of litter. Following
the implementation of bottle bills in various states, container litter has
been reduced by 69 to 84 percent (including in New York) (4)
, while total litter has been reduced by 34-64 percent.
(5)
Read more about the significant impact bottle bills have on litter |
| Deposits
aren’t needed where there is curbside recycling. |
Curbside
recycling and deposit systems are not mutually exclusive. Together they can
be part of a comprehensive approach to recycling. Not only are combined
curbside and deposit systems more effective than curbside recycling programs
alone, the materials collected through deposit programs are of a much higher
quality than materials collected through curbside recycling programs.
Read more on how Bottle Bills complement curbside recycling
|
| Deposit
return is inconvenient (consumers prefer home curbside bins). |
- Curbside is still
not available to 50% of the American population. (6)
- Curbsides don’t
address away-from-home consumption.
- Tripling of
curbside access has not stemmed the tide of waste.
(7)
- People are going
back to the store to shop anyway; special trips are rare.
(8)
|
| Deposits
rob curbside programs of valuable aluminum can revenue. |
- As it is, curbside
programs are failing to adequately capture aluminum cans. Despite a
tripling in curbside access in the last decade (2,711 programs in 1990,
9,709 in 2000), the U.S. aluminum can recycling rate went from 65% in 1992
to 49% in 2001.
(9)
- Curbside programs
do not target cans consumed away from home.
- Aluminum cans are
gradually being supplanted by plastic bottles.
(10)
- Deposits reduce
collection costs by removing cumbersome, low-value glass and plastic
bottles from the stream. Plastic bottles are cumbersome to collect at
curbside (low weight-to-volume ratio)
(11);
mixed-color glass is heavy and has a low scrap value, and is often
impossible to market.
(12)
- It is unfair to
expect one container type to “carry” the others.
- It is illogical to
expect curbside recycling to generate revenue when this expectation has
never been made of land filling or incineration.
|
| Deposits
are more expensive than other recycling programs. |
- While their
initial costs may be more, deposits are much more effective than other
recycling and waste reduction programs, resulting in more bang for the
buck.
The BEAR report found that a combination of recycling methods in 10
deposits states recycles 490 containers per capita per year, at a cost of
1.53¢/unit, vs. 191 containers per capita per year at 1.25¢/unit in 40 non-deposit
states (which rely on curbsides and drop-offs to do the whole job). In
other words, at an additional cost of only 1.5¢ per six-pack, beverage
container recovery rates in deposit states are more than 2.5 times higher
than in states without bottle bills.
(13)
- Under deposit
systems, the cost of recycling is borne by producers and consumers, not by
government and taxpayers.
|
| Deposit
returns are expensive for distributors. |
- There is a cost to
dealing with beverage container waste, whether through recycling or
disposal; it will either be borne by government or by brand-owners,
distributors, and beverage consumers.
- Distributors have
taken back-hauling out of the distribution system; they have the ability
to design it back in.
- Distributors have
the option of passing the cost of handling on to consumers.
|
|
“Deposits are a tax” and increase the price of beverages. |
Bottle
bill opponents call bottle bills "a tax". Virginia State Senator Madison
Marye has about the best answer yet. He once said, "Well sir, I sure wish
all my taxes were refundable, like container deposits." One-way, throwaway,
no-deposit, no-return beverage containers are a corporate subsidy, a hidden
tax. Taxpayers absorb the cost of disposing of beverage containers!
Taxpayers absorb the costs of unsightly, dangerous beverage container litter!
And many taxpayers absorb the costs of recycling beverage containers through
curbside recycling programs.
When there is a
refundable deposit on beverage containers, the consumers (not taxpayers) pay
the deposit. The deposit is refunded if the container is returned. And the
beverage distributors and bottlers absorb the cost of collection. They then
choose whether or not to pass their costs on to their consumers.
Because 70% or more
of the deposit containers are returned, taxpayers pay less for disposal,
less for litter pickup, and less for curbside recycling.
Read about "real" taxes
unsuccessfully used as bottle bill alternatives. |
Sources
(1) Glass beer and soft
drinks bottles: 2.5%; Glass wine and liquor bottles: 0.8%; Aluminum beer and
soft drink cans: 0.7%; Plastic soft drink bottles: 0.4%. From: Table 19,
“Products Generated in the Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2000 (with detail on
containers and packaging)” in “Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2000
Facts and Figures.” Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (5305W) EPA530-R-02-001, June 2002.
(2) “Energy to Waste?"
Usman Valiente, Solid Waste and Recycling, April/May 2000.
(3) ”Litter in Kentucky: A
View from the Field.” Solid Waste Coordinators of Kentucky, May 1999.
(4) Beverage container
litter reduction: 69-77% in Maine ( p. 9, “State’s Experience With Beverage
Container Deposit Laws Shows Positive Benefits.” U.S. General Accounting Office/Comptroller
General of the United States, December 11, 1980); 84% in Michigan (“ Michigan
Roadside Litter Composition Survey: Final Report.” Michigan Department of
Transportation, Maintenance Division. December 1979); 70-80% in New York (“Final
Report of the Temporary State Commission on Returnable Beverage Containers,”
March 27, 1985).
(5) Total litter reduction:
30% in Massachusetts (“ Bottle Bills in the 1980’s: A Handbook for Effective
Citizen Action,” Environmental Action Foundation, August 1987), 34-64% in Maine
(U.S. General Accounting Office/Comptroller General of the United States,
December 11, 1980), 47% in Oregon (p. 26, “Oregon’s Bottle Bill: The 1982
Report,” Oregon Department of Environmental Quality).
(6) Derived from data in
“The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle, December 2001.
(7) Tripling of curbside
access in last decade from “The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle,
December 2001. Rising tide of [container] waste in last decade: 1.21
million tons of containers and packaging were landfilled or incinerated in 2000,
up from 1.17 million tons in 1990. Source: Table 17 “Products Discarded in the
Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2000 (with detail on nondurable goods),”
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5305W) EPA530-R-02-001, June 2002.
(8) Report by DSM
Environmental Services, Inc. (Contact CRI for title and date).
(9) Tripling of curbside
access in last decade from “The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle,
December 2001. Rising tide of [container] waste in last decade: 1.21
million tons of containers and packaging were landfilled or incinerated in 2000,
up from 1.17 million tons in 1990. Source: Table 17 “Products Discarded in the
Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2000 (with detail on nondurable goods),”
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5305W) EPA530-R-02-001, June 2002.
(10) Table 2.1 “Beverage
Package Market: Volume, Share and Growth by Package Type 1997 – 1999 (r).” in
Beverage Packaging in the U.S., 2000 Edition. Beverage Marketing
Corporation, October 2000.
(11) Aluminum cans
collected at curbside yield about $32/cubic yard in gross revenues, compared to
about $5 and $15 for PET and glass bottles respectively. Derived from the
following data: weight-to-volume ratios for whole uncompacted containers (in
lbs/cubic yard): glass bottles: 600; PET bottles: 40; aluminum cans: 62.5.
Source: “Appendix B: Standard Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors,” in
“Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments.” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5306W) EPA530-R-97-011, September 1997. Prices for materials in October 2002:
aluminum cans: $0.51/lb; PET bottles: $0.07/lb; Glass bottles: $0.025/lb.
Source: Container Recycling Report, Vol. 13, No. 12, Dec. 2002, Portland, OR.
(12) Jenny Gitlitz.
“Glass Recycling Market Trends, Contamination Problems Discussed.”
American Recycler Vol. 4 No.10, Oct. 2001.
(13) Table ES-1,
“Understanding Beverage Container Recycling: A Value Chain Assessment Prepared
for the Multi-Stakeholder Recovery Project. ” Global Green USA, January 16,
2002.
I have to add this quotation: "Influential lobbyists, hired out by powerful
special interests, work behind closed doors to push through measures that is
not only environmentally bad. This is an anti-consumer measure."
Why?
-
It is commonly unknown (esp. in Czech Republic), that they are many countries all over the world with deposit
systems. We have chance to lower greenhouse gas CO2 emissions and boost
recycling! See
Container
Recycling Institute >
Bottle Bill Resource
Guide, esp. in
Current & Proposed
Laws.
-
Post consumers beverage container (PET bottles, cans,
glass bottles) could NOT be marked with attributes WASTE. This improper
use is absolutely wrong and extra
counter-productive - see first salvage
attempt in EU:
COM (2007) 0059.
-
Beverage containers are paid by consumers
in total price
of beverages - consequently are property of customers.
-
Contemporary methods for collection of post consumers
beverage containers are totally
obsolete - they come from the
eighties of past century and more than that...
-
In US/Australia with mandatory deposits refunds, now even
doubled (e.g. 5/10 cents
deposits, etc.) are absolutely NOT INCENTIVE for
consumers.
-
Current world leaders in deposit systems are Scandinavian
states. Search the Web in main menu RETURN.
Archive
in
files section:
>
2007
>
2006
>
2005
>
2004
>
2003
>
2002
>
2001
Archive
in
files section
Nové/News:
2008
>
2007
> 2006
>
2005 >
2004
>
2003 >
2002
> 2001
>
2000
Myths & Facts
