A proposal before a committee on Beacon Hill calls for eliminating 5-cent deposits on soda and beer containers, the Associated Press reports.
In an age of single stream curbside recycling, is it time to say good-bye to the bottle bill?
by village14 | Mar 27, 2016 | Newton | 56 comments
A proposal before a committee on Beacon Hill calls for eliminating 5-cent deposits on soda and beer containers, the Associated Press reports.
In an age of single stream curbside recycling, is it time to say good-bye to the bottle bill?
September 13, 2023
Men's Crib September 13, 2023 5:20 am
Absolutely not. Look around, do you ever see 5 cent bottles or cans lying around as litter? No. Do you see water bottles, juice bottles? Yes. If anything we should expand the bottle bill to all beverage containers.
uh, yes.
Absolutely not. Look around, do you ever see 5 cent bottles or cans lying around as litter? No. Do you see water bottles, juice bottles? Yes. If anything we should expand the bottle bill to all beverage containers.
uh, yes.
Exactly what Emily said – the deposit eliminates litter. I was astonished and dismayed when the expansion of the bottle bill did not pass a couple of years ago.
Exactly what Emily said – the deposit eliminates litter. I was astonished and dismayed when the expansion of the bottle bill did not pass a couple of years ago.
Greg, for every time you see a deposit bottle or can, how often would you estimate you see a single use water or sports drink bottle? In my experience I would estimate between 10-1 and 100-1. We should be expanding, not rolling back the bottle bill.
@Nathan: No doubt about it, bottle deposits have eliminated litter and that’s a very good thing. I was answering Councilor Norton’s question asking if one “ever” sees deposit bottles or cans as litter. And yes, I have.
Greg, for every time you see a deposit bottle or can, how often would you estimate you see a single use water or sports drink bottle? In my experience I would estimate between 10-1 and 100-1. We should be expanding, not rolling back the bottle bill.
@Nathan: No doubt about it, bottle deposits have eliminated litter and that’s a very good thing. I was answering Councilor Norton’s question asking if one “ever” sees deposit bottles or cans as litter. And yes, I have.
This paragraph of the AP report says it all:
Beverage producers have inflicted many times their fair share of damage to the planet with their irresponsible packaging and piracy of natural resources (not to mention the healthcare costs and deaths attributable to irresponsible marketing of products they knew to be harmful).
It will be interesting to keep an eye on this legislation and see which Massachusetts lawmakers get bought off by the Massachusetts Beverage Association and the even mightier American Beverage Association. Disgraceful.
This paragraph of the AP report says it all:
Beverage producers have inflicted many times their fair share of damage to the planet with their irresponsible packaging and piracy of natural resources (not to mention the healthcare costs and deaths attributable to irresponsible marketing of products they knew to be harmful).
It will be interesting to keep an eye on this legislation and see which Massachusetts lawmakers get bought off by the Massachusetts Beverage Association and the even mightier American Beverage Association. Disgraceful.
Of course we should get rid of these silly deposits. Most people are good. Most people do not litter. I see very little litter, water bottle or otherwise. When I do, I recycle it. It is arrogant when politicians order people how to behave. Mandatory deposits have wasted time and resources that could have been to make society better.
Of course we should get rid of these silly deposits. Most people are good. Most people do not litter. I see very little litter, water bottle or otherwise. When I do, I recycle it. It is arrogant when politicians order people how to behave. Mandatory deposits have wasted time and resources that could have been to make society better.
For the same reason that the 5 cent deposit should have been extended to water and juices, it is critical that the deposit remain. Per DEP only 64% of Massachusetts residents have curbside recycling. Add to that the beverages that are consumed in public. The deposit is a great incentive to do the work to get these bottles returned if you don’t have an option to recycle. Otherwise most of these bottles would end up in landfills.
For the same reason that the 5 cent deposit should have been extended to water and juices, it is critical that the deposit remain. Per DEP only 64% of Massachusetts residents have curbside recycling. Add to that the beverages that are consumed in public. The deposit is a great incentive to do the work to get these bottles returned if you don’t have an option to recycle. Otherwise most of these bottles would end up in landfills.
“We all have one of these” [in Newton yes, but not everyone in Massachusetts]
Happy Easter to all who observe…
I have mixed feelings about this, I get that this has helped eliminate litter and don’t underestimate the value of that at all.
But Adam is right, it’s so arbitrary and doesn’t discourage use of harmful containers. And yes, as a non-litterer, I resent that I have to drive my beer bottles some place to have them recycled when I’m paying for an equally effective way to keep them out of a land fill through curbside recycling.
Also: @Shawn and @Alicia: This proposed bill allegedly seeks to address your exact concern by funding expansion of single stream recycling statewide. I don’t know if this proposal really would achieve that goal or not. But it’s the right goal. I’d also favor funding for more recycling bins (and pickup) in public spaces. Yes some jerks are still going to toss their containers wherever but for the rest of us (and when we pick-up someone else’s trash) it would help to have more places to toss and recycle it.
“We all have one of these” [in Newton yes, but not everyone in Massachusetts]
Happy Easter to all who observe…
I have mixed feelings about this, I get that this has helped eliminate litter and don’t underestimate the value of that at all.
But Adam is right, it’s so arbitrary and doesn’t discourage use of harmful containers. And yes, as a non-litterer, I resent that I have to drive my beer bottles some place to have them recycled when I’m paying for an equally effective way to keep them out of a land fill through curbside recycling.
Also: @Shawn and @Alicia: This proposed bill allegedly seeks to address your exact concern by funding expansion of single stream recycling statewide. I don’t know if this proposal really would achieve that goal or not. But it’s the right goal. I’d also favor funding for more recycling bins (and pickup) in public spaces. Yes some jerks are still going to toss their containers wherever but for the rest of us (and when we pick-up someone else’s trash) it would help to have more places to toss and recycle it.
Today’s bottle bill is a joke, as was the attempt to preserve and expand it. If we’re going to continue to have a bottle bill at all, it should accomplish something meaningful to shift the way people manufacture and use products, not just tax them all equally. Target the containers most likely to be discarded in a public setting as well as consider the overall environmental cost of the beverage, including manufacturing and the type of packaging. Plastics have a high cost to process compared to glass or tin, and smaller containers are more wasteful by surface area. We might as well stop wasting our time on deposits for 2 liter bottles and be happy with the 64% home recycling rate. Instead, focus on small plastic water and sports drink bottles and try to discourage their use… especially the bottled water!
Today’s bottle bill is a joke, as was the attempt to preserve and expand it. If we’re going to continue to have a bottle bill at all, it should accomplish something meaningful to shift the way people manufacture and use products, not just tax them all equally. Target the containers most likely to be discarded in a public setting as well as consider the overall environmental cost of the beverage, including manufacturing and the type of packaging. Plastics have a high cost to process compared to glass or tin, and smaller containers are more wasteful by surface area. We might as well stop wasting our time on deposits for 2 liter bottles and be happy with the 64% home recycling rate. Instead, focus on small plastic water and sports drink bottles and try to discourage their use… especially the bottled water!
The Bottle Bill (implemented 33 years ago) continues to be the most effective tool we have to keep recycling rates high. Deposit containers have recycling rates above 80% while those beverage containers without a deposit are recycled at about a 25% rate.
The Moore/Cusack H.B.646 bill is widely supported by the beverage and supermarket trade groups because it gets them off the hook for any responsibility for the end use of their products. This bill proposes to levy a 1 cent fee on all non-dairy containers for 3 years. The industry estimates that this will result in $114 million in added revenue over the 3 year period which would go into Municipal Recycling Enhancement Fund (The Fund) . They also estimate that eliminating the forced deposits would add $15 million worth of recycling stream feedstock back into the communities that would otherwise go the redemption centers. In addition the higher recycling rates will help communities save money from “avoided” disposal costs which they estimate at $61 million.
To sum up, the higher valued material (especially aluminum), all that extra recycling that we get, plus the “avoided” costs of having to pay a fee to dispose of trash (because this will be recycled) will add up to $76 million communities will have at their disposal (pun intended).
Well who would say “No” to that?
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”
First I am quite skeptical that opting out of the Bottle Bill will suddenly increase our recycling rates. The Container Recycling Institute estimates that if we eliminate of the deposit system entirely, the recycling rates for aluminum, plastic, and glass will drop to 44%, 25%, and 30% respectively, generating approximately of 46 thousand tons of material collected for recycling per year. (Plus we would have an annual loss of about 65 thousand tons that had previously been recycled, and would become trash).
Here in Newton we have a single stream collection system and while that makes recycling more convenient it significantly reduces the quality and value of our recycled materials .For example only about 60% of single stream glass can be turned into high quality product, whereas 98% of deposit glass can be made into another glass bottle. In fact, it costs about $20/ton to recycle glass—when markets can be found at all—versus deposit glass that has a $20/ton scrap value.
We would likely see an increase in litter which municipalities pay to clean up. The Fund would help with these costs for 3 years and then it goes away. All the onus is then on consumers and communities to handle solid waste and recycling and litter clean up.
The bill promoters tout how important “pay as you throw”(PAYT) programs and education and outreach are to increasing recycling rates,and they are absolutely correct on this. The fund provides money for financial or technical assistance but I have serious concerns that it comes close to being adequate. How far do you think $114 million over 3 years for statewide programs will go? How do you think a full PAYT program would go over in Newton?
An effective, efficient recycling program requires good management and experience in how these programs work in relation to markets. The City of Newton has not had a recycling or solid waste manager for about a year and our curbside recycling rate right now is about 38%. The City has done very little education and outreach since we moved to the automated single stream collection in 2009.
A holistic approach to reducing trash and maximizing recycling includes a broad coalition of stakeholders and includes a combination of cutting consumption, reducing packaging, urging manufacturers to re-design products with some thought towards their end use, as well as curbside recycling and container deposit laws.
One thing I know; all this trash we Americans produce is evidence we are doing something wrong. Nature recycles everything, we do not.
The Bottle Bill (implemented 33 years ago) continues to be the most effective tool we have to keep recycling rates high. Deposit containers have recycling rates above 80% while those beverage containers without a deposit are recycled at about a 25% rate.
The Moore/Cusack H.B.646 bill is widely supported by the beverage and supermarket trade groups because it gets them off the hook for any responsibility for the end use of their products. This bill proposes to levy a 1 cent fee on all non-dairy containers for 3 years. The industry estimates that this will result in $114 million in added revenue over the 3 year period which would go into Municipal Recycling Enhancement Fund (The Fund) . They also estimate that eliminating the forced deposits would add $15 million worth of recycling stream feedstock back into the communities that would otherwise go the redemption centers. In addition the higher recycling rates will help communities save money from “avoided” disposal costs which they estimate at $61 million.
To sum up, the higher valued material (especially aluminum), all that extra recycling that we get, plus the “avoided” costs of having to pay a fee to dispose of trash (because this will be recycled) will add up to $76 million communities will have at their disposal (pun intended).
Well who would say “No” to that?
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”
First I am quite skeptical that opting out of the Bottle Bill will suddenly increase our recycling rates. The Container Recycling Institute estimates that if we eliminate of the deposit system entirely, the recycling rates for aluminum, plastic, and glass will drop to 44%, 25%, and 30% respectively, generating approximately of 46 thousand tons of material collected for recycling per year. (Plus we would have an annual loss of about 65 thousand tons that had previously been recycled, and would become trash).
Here in Newton we have a single stream collection system and while that makes recycling more convenient it significantly reduces the quality and value of our recycled materials .For example only about 60% of single stream glass can be turned into high quality product, whereas 98% of deposit glass can be made into another glass bottle. In fact, it costs about $20/ton to recycle glass—when markets can be found at all—versus deposit glass that has a $20/ton scrap value.
We would likely see an increase in litter which municipalities pay to clean up. The Fund would help with these costs for 3 years and then it goes away. All the onus is then on consumers and communities to handle solid waste and recycling and litter clean up.
The bill promoters tout how important “pay as you throw”(PAYT) programs and education and outreach are to increasing recycling rates,and they are absolutely correct on this. The fund provides money for financial or technical assistance but I have serious concerns that it comes close to being adequate. How far do you think $114 million over 3 years for statewide programs will go? How do you think a full PAYT program would go over in Newton?
An effective, efficient recycling program requires good management and experience in how these programs work in relation to markets. The City of Newton has not had a recycling or solid waste manager for about a year and our curbside recycling rate right now is about 38%. The City has done very little education and outreach since we moved to the automated single stream collection in 2009.
A holistic approach to reducing trash and maximizing recycling includes a broad coalition of stakeholders and includes a combination of cutting consumption, reducing packaging, urging manufacturers to re-design products with some thought towards their end use, as well as curbside recycling and container deposit laws.
One thing I know; all this trash we Americans produce is evidence we are doing something wrong. Nature recycles everything, we do not.
@Greg – the proposed bill levies the 1 cent for 3 years and then it goes away. So it would not fund expansion of single stream recycling, it would, as Alison said, just transfer the cost onto communities to pick up the increase in litter.
If the only problem with this proposal is the number of years or amount is raises, then as you know, those specifics can be amended. As I said, I have no idea what’s needed to expand recycling statewide. Does the Sierra Club have a proposal that addresses that?
@Greg – the proposed bill levies the 1 cent for 3 years and then it goes away. So it would not fund expansion of single stream recycling, it would, as Alison said, just transfer the cost onto communities to pick up the increase in litter.
If the only problem with this proposal is the number of years or amount is raises, then as you know, those specifics can be amended. As I said, I have no idea what’s needed to expand recycling statewide. Does the Sierra Club have a proposal that addresses that?
What Councilor Leary said. The current law works and should be expanded not eliminated to water bottles, wine and liquor bottles, juice boxes and all other beverage containers.
What Councilor Leary said. The current law works and should be expanded not eliminated to water bottles, wine and liquor bottles, juice boxes and all other beverage containers.
Not to overlook the street level Newton charity, usually immigrants who do not speak American. Commonly found poking thru the green recycling carts, this is the Newton sovereign wealth fund – affluence abound. Justification for the ‘haves’ in having so much more than other municipalities; is it not a tokenism in principal?
Not to overlook the street level Newton charity, usually immigrants who do not speak American. Commonly found poking thru the green recycling carts, this is the Newton sovereign wealth fund – affluence abound. Justification for the ‘haves’ in having so much more than other municipalities; is it not a tokenism in principal?
@Greg, one idea that may show promise is the Closed Loop Fund, which launched two years ago, and provides grants and financing at below-market rates to boost the U.S. recycling infrastructure.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/how-closed-loop-fund-boosts-recycling-with-support-from-the-worlds-leading/415776/
Councilor Leary: Thanks for this and your extensive previous reply.
@Greg, one idea that may show promise is the Closed Loop Fund, which launched two years ago, and provides grants and financing at below-market rates to boost the U.S. recycling infrastructure.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/how-closed-loop-fund-boosts-recycling-with-support-from-the-worlds-leading/415776/
Councilor Leary: Thanks for this and your extensive previous reply.
Closed Loop is based in the private sector, being the primary financial source. Newton’s solid waste commission has disbanded -why? Is it not time to engage successful Newton based recyclers in exploring the viability of private sector transitioning to the municipal scope? Recycling consciousness goes beyond the term of single stream waste, adaptability to proven internet repurpose in a municipality which prides itself on recycling performance seems to be lacking in the new frontier of social clearinghouse ethics- too bad.
Closed Loop is based in the private sector, being the primary financial source. Newton’s solid waste commission has disbanded -why? Is it not time to engage successful Newton based recyclers in exploring the viability of private sector transitioning to the municipal scope? Recycling consciousness goes beyond the term of single stream waste, adaptability to proven internet repurpose in a municipality which prides itself on recycling performance seems to be lacking in the new frontier of social clearinghouse ethics- too bad.
My understanding is the state makes a lot of money on unclaimed bottle returns now. I believe it is in the (many) multi millions. The state would only make that much more, if they now included other types of containers. Seems like the focus is on revenue.
Whatever “well intentioned” use of the money, it is just another example of a money grab by the state.
I am not convinced in this day and age that the strongest motivating factor for not littering for a majority of the people is a nickel return.
My understanding is the state makes a lot of money on unclaimed bottle returns now. I believe it is in the (many) multi millions. The state would only make that much more, if they now included other types of containers. Seems like the focus is on revenue.
Whatever “well intentioned” use of the money, it is just another example of a money grab by the state.
I am not convinced in this day and age that the strongest motivating factor for not littering for a majority of the people is a nickel return.
I don’t see any real negatives in the bottle bill.
I don’t see any real negatives in the bottle bill.
@Neal. Nice to see you on this site.
@Neal. Nice to see you on this site.
I agree with Bob. Neal nice to see ya….what took you so long, we missed you.
I agree with Bob. Neal nice to see ya….what took you so long, we missed you.
Hi Tom and Bob:
Thank you for the warm greeting.
Tom, I think there is a down side to bottle bill. As Greg mentioned, it is actually more inconvenient to have to store and transport those bottles.
It is also a duplication of services. We have at our homes recycling efforts. Why the need for a store to take time, space, and employees away from other activities more related to their core business?
The real question is does it make a difference today. I don’t think there is any question, the bottle deposit served a useful purpose in educating the public to the issues at the time. But is it really what motivates the vast majority of us today, to recycle.
Whenever we go to a sporting event, or at the airport, we pay that deposit, but I don’t know anyone that gets their money back. Why should the government get that? There are just many situations where it isn’t convenient to redeem that deposit, and yet it still ends up in the proper receptacle; and the government profits from it.
Hi Tom and Bob:
Thank you for the warm greeting.
Tom, I think there is a down side to bottle bill. As Greg mentioned, it is actually more inconvenient to have to store and transport those bottles.
It is also a duplication of services. We have at our homes recycling efforts. Why the need for a store to take time, space, and employees away from other activities more related to their core business?
The real question is does it make a difference today. I don’t think there is any question, the bottle deposit served a useful purpose in educating the public to the issues at the time. But is it really what motivates the vast majority of us today, to recycle.
Whenever we go to a sporting event, or at the airport, we pay that deposit, but I don’t know anyone that gets their money back. Why should the government get that? There are just many situations where it isn’t convenient to redeem that deposit, and yet it still ends up in the proper receptacle; and the government profits from it.
Neal’s point are well taken. Some 35 million dollars of unclaimed deposit money goes to the general fund every year. I’m not a fan of dragging my bottles to the store to reclaim my deposit either.
But we would need a real committment from the private sector to work with communities to promote effective recycling programs. Our reliance on incineration and landfilling carries long term and grim ecological costs.
Another key problem is that single stream recycling destroys the value of the recyclable materials due to contamination. The reason the deposit feedstock materials maintain their high value is precisely because they stay out of the single stream system.
Neal’s point are well taken. Some 35 million dollars of unclaimed deposit money goes to the general fund every year. I’m not a fan of dragging my bottles to the store to reclaim my deposit either.
But we would need a real committment from the private sector to work with communities to promote effective recycling programs. Our reliance on incineration and landfilling carries long term and grim ecological costs.
Another key problem is that single stream recycling destroys the value of the recyclable materials due to contamination. The reason the deposit feedstock materials maintain their high value is precisely because they stay out of the single stream system.
Hi Alison,
If the number you say is correct, doesn’t that mean that 700 million cans are not collected for recycling in this program, each year? My math could be suspect, so I’m not completely sure. But, if that is the case, then it would seem to bolster the argument against the bottle bill; unless your goal is just to collect more revenue for the state. All those cans aren’t ending up in the street.
The onus isn’t on the private sector, it is the government that should be establishing effective recycling. First, they should be using all that money from unclaimed deposits to enhance the recycling throughout the state.
Personally, I think, at the very least, Newton should have two stream recycling, paper and all other. Paper should be collected once a month( maybe every two weeks at holiday time), in its own colored bin.
Hi Alison,
If the number you say is correct, doesn’t that mean that 700 million cans are not collected for recycling in this program, each year? My math could be suspect, so I’m not completely sure. But, if that is the case, then it would seem to bolster the argument against the bottle bill; unless your goal is just to collect more revenue for the state. All those cans aren’t ending up in the street.
The onus isn’t on the private sector, it is the government that should be establishing effective recycling. First, they should be using all that money from unclaimed deposits to enhance the recycling throughout the state.
Personally, I think, at the very least, Newton should have two stream recycling, paper and all other. Paper should be collected once a month( maybe every two weeks at holiday time), in its own colored bin.
@Neal Fleisher, to continue your analysis, the population of Massachusetts is just under 7 million so the bottle bill is missing the collection of over 100 cans and bottles per resident. For Newton that is nearly 9 million unclaimed bottles and cans. I wonder how this works. Either the numbers are incorrect or we are recycling nearly $450,000 in our green bins each year.
@Neal Fleisher, to continue your analysis, the population of Massachusetts is just under 7 million so the bottle bill is missing the collection of over 100 cans and bottles per resident. For Newton that is nearly 9 million unclaimed bottles and cans. I wonder how this works. Either the numbers are incorrect or we are recycling nearly $450,000 in our green bins each year.
According to the MA Department of Revenue, $34.7 million in unclaimed deposit revenue was remitted to the Commonwealth in 2014. According to the Container Recycling Institute (a pro Bottle Bill advocacy group), if the bottle bill were to be repealed, unclaimed deposits would disappear as a revenue source at an estimated loss of $350 million over a 10-year period.
I think that would about 694 million bottles and cans.
My husband said well, “that’s how you get people to recycle! Tell them if you don’t return your bottles and cans it goes to the State of MA and that’s how you end up with expensive renovations of the corner office.
Neil, I don’t think you can make the conclusion that the bottle isn’t effective, though we know that redemptions are declining. The nickel has lost a lot of value since 1983. You could also make the argument that we should raise the deposit fee to 10 cents.
They should be using that money to enhance recycling programs. It should be earmarked for that purpose and the expanded Bottle Bill which did not pass did have that language.
But any effective recycling program has to be a shared responsibility between the producers (the retailers, manufacturers and bottlers), the manufacturers (who must design their products with their end use in mind) and the state and local governments. I would also add that market doesn’t reflect the long term costs of landfilling and incineration, which discourages recycling.
Yes, I agree that it would be better to have separated recycling; paper, glass, aluminum and plastics and I would add a separate container for organic waste for those who don’t compost at home.
According to the MA Department of Revenue, $34.7 million in unclaimed deposit revenue was remitted to the Commonwealth in 2014. According to the Container Recycling Institute (a pro Bottle Bill advocacy group), if the bottle bill were to be repealed, unclaimed deposits would disappear as a revenue source at an estimated loss of $350 million over a 10-year period.
I think that would about 694 million bottles and cans.
My husband said well, “that’s how you get people to recycle! Tell them if you don’t return your bottles and cans it goes to the State of MA and that’s how you end up with expensive renovations of the corner office.
Neil, I don’t think you can make the conclusion that the bottle isn’t effective, though we know that redemptions are declining. The nickel has lost a lot of value since 1983. You could also make the argument that we should raise the deposit fee to 10 cents.
They should be using that money to enhance recycling programs. It should be earmarked for that purpose and the expanded Bottle Bill which did not pass did have that language.
But any effective recycling program has to be a shared responsibility between the producers (the retailers, manufacturers and bottlers), the manufacturers (who must design their products with their end use in mind) and the state and local governments. I would also add that market doesn’t reflect the long term costs of landfilling and incineration, which discourages recycling.
Yes, I agree that it would be better to have separated recycling; paper, glass, aluminum and plastics and I would add a separate container for organic waste for those who don’t compost at home.