In Oregon there is a 5 cent can deposit. For those of you not familiar with the process, whenever you buy qualifying beverage products--currently aluminum cans, glass bottles, plastics pop bottles, and, starting next year, bottled water--you pay 5 cents per can/bottle up front and when you bring it back to the recycling location (usually the grocery store) you get your 5 cents back. It's a cost neutral incentive program designed to increase recycling.
The problem, however, is that 5 cents may not be enough. While riding a bicycle on country roads I see dozens of cans and bottles coloring the ditch. The other day I asked my two fellow riders what they thought about increasing the can deposit from 5 cents to 25 cents. It is still cost neutral--the 25 cents up front are returned when you bring it back--but with a higher deposit people have an even greater incentive to return their cans and bottles.
Brian and Tim (the cyclists) argued that that would cause people to stop buying as many beverages, but I'm not convinced. I think about how gas has tripled in cost yet people continue to drive all the time. Would an additional few dollars in up front cost, the equivalent of one gallon of gas, cause people to slow their consumption of beer and pop, especially when they get that money back?
How about you all? What are your thoughts about increasing the can deposit? Anyone out there reading this in a state where it is 10 cents (Michigan)?
UPDATE: From Mike in comments, here is article from NYTimes Magazine that has more info about deposits. It also answered one of my questions about if a higher deposit induces higher recycling rates. In Michigan (I originally said Maine, but corrected it above) the deposit is 10 cents and there return rate is the highest in the country at 97%. Good to know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/magazine/27Bottle-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
hey this article is like a year old or something, and it's a little long, but from what i remember it's really good at addressing what you were talking about.
Wow, great memory Mike. The article was very interesting. The guys I ride with both work/worked in the grocery industry and talked about the crappiness of having to deal with can returns and how expanding the bottle bill would only make that worse. They said it would be nice to have a third party system run the redemption process, just as the grocer lobby asked in 11th hour discussions. I can certainly see the benefit in that if the cost of wastefulness continue to be borne by the producers. That way a market for recyclables will continue to grow.
duuudee. so weird you wrote about this because maggie and i JUST said yest. we were going to start turning in our cans for side cash... i think you should work on that legislation to increase the payback stat.
Wow, weird that you would say that. This morning while talking to one of my adult friends (does that imply my other friends are kid friends?) about turning an empty block in La Grande from a blight to a community space he said, "You need to run for city council." Then you said this. Alas, if only I weren't unemployed and highly transient.
In reference to the efficient bottle return system...In Germany (yes, I find a way to bring it up in every conversation)they have large machines, that they place in the grocery store where you can return your bottles. Then you get a receipt that states the amount owed to you, you take it to the cashier and you get your money back. The system works very well.
Dana, we have those machines at some of our grocery stores here. The downside is that they cost quite a bit to buy and install, but there are certainly some significant perks.
Post a Comment