Center for Policy Alternatives
CPA - Header Photo

Bottle Bill

Americans trash more than 135 billion beverage bottles and cans every year.1
Billions more bottles and cans end up as litter on streets and sidewalks, in parks and streams, and on beaches and playgrounds. Wasted bottles and cans strain our nation’s landfills and mar our roadways and recreational areas.
The replacement of billions of wasted cans and bottles consumes an enormous amount of energy and resources.
The environmental consequences of wasted containers are not confined to landfills, parks and beaches. The generation of the energy needed to replace wasted bottles and cans results in 4.5 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic air and water pollutants.2 Some container manufacturing processes require an especially large quantity of energy—particularly aluminum smelting. The energy used to replace wasted beverage containers in 2002 could have provided a one-year supply of electricity for two million American homes.3
Beverage container recycling rates have declined and container waste has increased.
Recycling rates for aluminum cans—the most valuable material in the waste stream—was only 45 percent in 2004, down from a high of 65 percent in 1992. In 2004, 810,000 tons of aluminum beverage cans were wasted, up from 550,000 tons in 1992. Seven million tons of glass and plastic beverage bottles were also wasted.
Container deposit laws—or “bottle bills”—offer an effective system to recycle bottles and cans and prevent beverage container litter.
Studies indicate that the states with container deposit systems recycled an average of 490 containers per capita. In contrast, the nation’s 40 non-deposit states recycled only 191 containers per capita. In other words, states with bottle bills recycle 150 percent more per capita than states without bottle bills.
Refundable deposits provide a financial incentive to recycle at no cost to taxpayers.
Unlike curbside and drop-off recycling programs, which are best suited for residential recycling in suburban areas, refundable deposit programs work everywhere. Also, unlike municipal or county-run programs, container deposit systems are funded by the beverage industry at a cost of about 1.5 cents per six-pack.4 No tax dollars are needed.
Local governments do not lose revenue when bottle bills are implemented.
Opponents of bottle bills claim that container deposits will “rob” municipal curbside recycling programs of the valuable aluminum beverage cans that generate revenues to cover the cost of collection of other recyclables. However, such revenues do not completely cover the cost of collection. The costs to collect and process bulky low-cost glass and plastic bottles alone far outweigh the revenue generated by aluminum cans. The tremendous growth in bottled water sales means that the quantity of discarded plastic bottles is increasing. This trend poses a far greater threat to municipal curbside revenues than deposit laws.
Eleven states have enacted container deposit laws.
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon and Vermont all have used container deposit systems for more than 15 years. Hawaii’s bottle bill was implemented in January 2005. With the exception of Delaware, which exempts aluminum cans, all these states require refundable deposits—ranging from 1.5 cents in California to 10 cents in Michigan—on all beer and carbonated soft drink cans and bottles. In eight of the 11 states, deposits cover beer and soda only. California, Hawaii and Maine also cover carbonated juices, iced teas, sports drinks and bottled water. In five bottle bill states (CA, HI, MA, MI, ME), some or all unclaimed deposits become the property of the state and are used variously to promote recycling education, to administer the deposit system, to fund environmental programs, and to supplement the General Fund. Bottlers and distributors in the other states keep the unredeemed deposits.
In states with container deposit laws in effect, public support is overwhelming.
Bottle bills enjoy widespread public support. Opinion surveys in Iowa and Massachusetts showed support for expansion of their deposit laws at 85 percent and 84 percent respectively. A 1993 nationwide poll by Peter D. Hart and Associates found that three of every four Americans supported a national bottle bill.

This policy summary relies in large part on information from the Container Recycling Institute.

Endnotes
  1. Derived by the Container Recycling Institute using data from “Municipal Solid Waste in the US: 2000 Facts and Figures,” OSW/ER (5305W) EPA530-R-02-001, June 2002; “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste,” USEPA 530-R-98-013, September 1998; “Aluminum Can Reclamation,” Aluminum Association, 2001; U.S. Department of Commerce (private communication, 2001); and “2000 National Post-Consumer Plastics Recycling Report,” R.W. Beck for the American Plastics Council, 2001.
  2. Pat Franklin and Jennifer Gitlitz, “The 10¢ Incentive to Recycle,” Container Recycling Institute, February 2004; figures updated by personal communication with Jennifer Gitlitz, February 2006.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling, “Understanding Beverage Container Recovery: A Multi-Stakeholder Recovery Project - Stage 1,” January 2002.
Updates