Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mission We turn your love of the Great Outdoors into the laws that protect it.
We provide reliable information that helps you make decisions for your family. Check My Lake Don’t Trash the Phone Book Legacy Destination Weekends
My friends have a name for me
Solution: Offer a refund to customers who choose to recycle beverage containers.
Why Beverage Containers? ó Consumed on the go (Industry estimates that one
third of all soft drinks sold are consumed away from home)
ó Consume large amounts of energy in the manufacturing process
ó Significant greenhouse gas emissions can be avoided by recycling beverage containers rather than manufacturing new ones
Updating the program
Updating the program
ó Bottle sorting is a waste of time
ó Redemption centers should be able to contract with whoever they choose to haul away materials
ó Haulers should be able to redeem containers left in bins
ó Returns should be based on beverage type, not brand
ó Requiring everyone who sells beverages to redeem containers is untenable
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Percent of Beverage Containers Recycled vs. All Containers Sold, Whether Deposit or Not
2010 preliminary estimates
States with Recycling Refunds
50% of all beverage containers
recycled in the U.S. come
from these 10 states
Canadian Provinces with Recycling Refunds
Quebec
British Columbia
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
Ontario
Alberta
New Brunswick
Saskatchewan
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Recycling Refund programs result in higher beverage container recycling rates
Average recycling rates (by weight)
Source: CRI’s 2008 Beverage Market Data Analysis (using 2006 data)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
11 deposit states 39 non-deposit states
Aluminum cans
PET plastic bottles
Glass bottles
Total, 3 materials
Recovery Rates § California: 82% (includes curbside)
§ OR: 84% for deposit containers; 37% for non-deposit containers (2005)
§ HI: 76% for 2010/11
§ Range from 67% in NY (2007) to 97% in MI (10 cent deposit)
Container Recycling Institute © 2009
Recycling Refunds reduce litter State Beverage Container
Litter Reduced Total Litter Reduced
NY 70 - 80% 30% OR 83% 47% VT 76% 35% ME 69 - 77% 35 - 56% MI 80% 38% IA 77% 38%
Source: “Trade-offs Involved in Beverage Container Deposit Legislation”, US GAO, 1990.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2005: Hawaii’s CDL program introduced
P
erce
ntag
e
Source: Ocean Conservancy International Coastal Cleanup, 2003 - 2010
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2008: 60% reduction three years after implementation!
Per
cent
age
Source: Ocean Conservancy International Coastal Cleanup, 2003 -
2002 BEAR multi-stakeholder group findings
n The 10 bottle bill states recycle 490 containers per capita per year, at a cost of 1.53 cents per unit.
n The 40 non-bottle bill states recycle 191 containers per capita per year, at a cost of 1.24 cents per unit.
Thus, for a minimal price increase, more than two
and a half times as many containers are recovered!
Note: the 11th bottle bill state, Hawaii implemented their law in 2005
Recycling Refunds decrease taxpayer burden
“…it (the Returnable Container Act - RCA) has internalized the cost of solid waste management for beverage containers covered by the RCA…Therefore the taxpayer does not have to subsidize the disposal of empty beverage containers.”
Then-Governor of New York George Pataki
Cost Savings for Municipalities SAVINGS ON:
n Collection costs for recyclables
n Processing costs for recyclables
n Collection costs for disposal
n Landfill tipping fees
n Litter collection pick-up costs
n Collection from public litter bins
n Storm drain (or waterway) cleanup costs
n Monetization of environmental benefits
REVENUE LOST:
n Sale of recyclables (scrap value)