Amended Testimony in Support of Resolution

Recommending Expansion of Bottle Laws in New York State

 

Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. (mclarke@hunter.cuny.edu)

On behalf of Manhattan Citizens’ Solid Waste Advisory Board (MCSWAB)

October 10, 2002

 

Thank you for having this hearing regarding the proposed expansion of bottle laws in New York State.  The Manhattan SWAB, as well as the Citywide Recycling Advisory Board and the NYC Waste Prevention Coalition, are in full support of the measures in the Council’s resolution.  These are long overdue, and if passed they will provide the means to increase the recycling of beverage containers and improve recycling in general.  Local jobs will be created, litter will be reduced, energy and natural resources will be saved, emissions to air and water will be reduced, and landfill space will be conserved. 

 

Dispelling Industry Claims

 

At the hearing industry made a number of claims that I need to address. 

 

The packaging industry wants to make any business decisions it wants regarding the design of its packaging, even if it costs municipalities billions of dollars in increased collection and management costs, and even if the disposal harms human health and the environment.  The industry reps were smirking at the prospect that they could raise the price of disposables and still sell them.  This indicates that not only was the public saddled with this extra cost, consumers have been paying for the extra costs of the natural resources and their refinement made necessary by the decision to make disposables, and also for their collection and disposal via increased taxes for building incinerators and landfills. 

 

Back in 1960 we had a refillable deposit system, which conserves more resources than recycling, and generates less pollution in the process.  If, since 1960 the packaging industry had to pay municipalities for the costs of the business decision to develop and market disposable packaging, it might not have been so eager to make this wasteful decision.  This is an environmental and economic externality that other industries are prevented, by law, from perpetrating.  These economic and environmental costs of disposal passed along to city solid waste departments, was the first windfall to the packaging industry.  Councilmember Koppell mentioned the second windfall, of $1 billion in unclaimed nickels that was handed to the packaging industry since the Bottle Law went into effect.  It's no wonder that industry showed up in droves.  They want to preserve their protected status.

 

Meanwhile solid waste budgets have skyrocketed with the increasing amounts of disposable packaging.  According to Franklin Associates / USEPA's waste characterization study [1], beer and soft drink glass bottles increased from 1.4 million tons in 1960 to 5.58 million tons in 1970, remaining relatively stable since then.  At the start of that period there was a negligible quantity of aluminum beer and soft drink cans and during the entire period there were no plastic soft drink bottles. 

 

Industry has made other claims that don't hold water.  It claimed high costs for container transport, but much of the deposit containers are backhauled to the bottlers.  Industry also claims there is a hardship to small stores to implement the bottle laws.  While this may be true in theory, I have not encountered a small store (e.g. deli) that will take my deposit bottles or refund the nickel, so there is little impact.  Despite this, the state bottle program still recovers nearly 70% of the bottles and cans, but the City's recycling rate was under 20%.  Any inequities can be resolved by other means (e.g., change in regulation of small stores, additional redemption centers, etc.) and are not good arguments for expanding the bottle law.

 

One retailer argued that the average time it takes for his distributor to pick up his bottles and cans is 21 days.  Does this mean that he only receives new deliveries that often?  One of the retailers who represents the retail industry told me afterwards that this is an isolated case.  Again, it does not support not expanding the bottle law.

 

Benefits of claiming unredeemed container deposits

 

For years it has been recognized that the unclaimed nickels resulting from those beverage consumers, who do not redeem beverage containers, has resulted in a windfall in the millions of dollars to beverage bottlers.   If unredeemed deposits and the sale of redeemed bottles and cans are considered, New York State’s deposit program can be less costly than curbside programs—at no cost to taxpayers. [2]  In California, 100% of unredeemed deposits are given to the State Dept of Conservation.  One hundred percent is also escheated to the states of Michigan [3], Massachusetts and Hawaii in their deposit systems. [4]  Several Canadian provinces also retain unredeemed deposits (Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Yukon).

 

 

Benefits of expanding the list of deposit containers

 

            Increased Recycling Rates

New York’s bottle law covers soft drinks, beer, malt, mineral and soda water, and wine coolers, and has a 72% redemption rate as of 1999.  Massachusetts covers a similar list of containers with a 5 cent deposit, and also has a 72% redemption rate. 

 

In January 2000, California expanded its program to include more types of containers, from just carbonated soft drinks, beer and wine coolers to include virtually every beverage packaged in aluminum, glass, plastic or bimetal containers.  The only beverages now excluded from the law are milk, wine, and distilled spirits.  In Iowa, there are deposits on wine and liquor containers in addition to the categories in New York’s deposit program; the redemption rate for beer and soft drinks is 95% and 56% for spirits.  In Maine, there is a 5 cent deposit on soft drinks, beer, water, mineral water, and non-alcoholic carbonated and non-carbonated drinks, and a 15 cent deposit on wine and liquor, with an overall redemption rate of 80%.  Vermont’s program is similar to Maine’s with the same redemption rate.   Just as EPA’s research has shown that increasing the number of materials targeted in a curbside recycling program increases recycling rates and decreases costs, it also appears that increasing the number of materials in a deposit program increases redemption rates.

The ten states with ‘bottle bills’ and deposits on beverage containers recycle 80 percent of their plastic soda bottles; the 40 states without deposits recycle only 10 to 20 percent of their bottles. [5]

 

            Decreased Litter

Including additional containers in the deposit program will also have the effect of decreasing litter of those containers.  In New York State, a 70-80% reduction in beverage container litter was achieved within a few years of enactment of the initial bottle law.[6]  (Total Litter Reduction was 30%. [7])  Studies conducted by the Michigan Department of Transportation showed that there was a dramatic decline in containers littered along Michigan roads when Michigan’s Bottle Bill came into effect.  Data from the Center for Marine Conservation’s (CMC) 1995 International Coastal Cleanup shows that, on average, beverage container debris represents a far greater percentage of beach litter in non-bottle bill states (19 percent) than in bottle bill states (7 percent).  Thus, a portion of new container types that could be redeemed will be, either by the purchasers or scavengers. 

 

Society does not invest in “complete litter removal” from beaches, roads, or other locations. Thus, container recycling will reduce human injuries due to contact with old or broken containers. In the year after Massachusetts enacted its bottle bill, outdoor glass-related injuries to children treated at Children’s Hospital in Boston dropped by 60 percent, while other childhood injuries remained steady or increased

slightly.  Littered containers also cause problems for farmers and recreational cyclists.  Broken glass on roadways causes flat tires on farm tractors and bicycles, costing time and money.[8]

 

 

A detailed report by Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimated that the State's Bottle Law reduced the volume of discarded beverage containers by 72 percent annually, from 47.5 million cubic feet to 13.1 million cubic feet.  The study estimated that the 34.1 million cubic feet saved by the deposit law was approximately equal to all of the municipal waste generated by a city the size of Rochester over a period of nearly three years.  The study also found that recycling rates increased dramatically after the bill’s passage, with aluminum cans increasing from 18 % to 82 %; glass one-way bottles from 5 % to 79 %; and PET bottles from 1 % to 57 %.  Finally, the study estimated the deposit law saves the state 11.5 trillion BTU’s (British thermal units) or the equivalent of 2 million barrels of oil annually.

 

Benefits of banning deposit containers from landfills

 

Iowa’s 95% redemption rate is, not only due to the inclusion of wine and liquor in addition to the traditional bottle bill items, but also to the fact that deposit containers have been banned from landfills since 1990. [9]  Nova Scotia also bans redeemed deposit beverage containers, as well as other glass and steel containers, from landfills and incinerators.

 

 

 

Benefit of increasing deposit to 10 cents

 

A comparison of states having deposits of 2.5 cents, 5 cents, and 10 cents for all or parts of their programs shows that the higher deposits are associated with higher redemption rates.  Michigan, the only state with across the board 10 cent deposit, and a 5 cent deposit on refillable containers, has a 95% redemption rate.  Most states where the deposit is 5 cents have 72-80% redemption rates.  In California, where most beverage containers (those under 24 oz) have a 2.5 cent deposit, with the remainder having a 5 cent deposit, the overall redemption rate is just 69%.  Clearly, doubling the economic incentive for consumers to return bottles and cans for the deposit money has a beneficial effect on redemption rates.  The purchasers have twice the incentive and scavengers get twice the reward for their work.  This finding is supported by the research of Raymond DeYoung, University of Michigan, and others who have determined that conservation behaviors are maximized when there are economic motivations as well as intrinsic motivations (i.e., it’s the right thing to do).

 

Environmental Benefits [10]

 

A recent EPA report (identified in the notes to Table 4-1) provides data on lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions due to recycling rather than landfilling. Using the EPA data one can show that, in 1999, recycling beverage containers reduced GHG emissions by 4,093,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE), or about 79 pounds for each of 103.9 million households in the U.S. The specific reductions due to aluminum, glass and plastics recycling are shown on line 2 of Table 4-1 from the BEAR report.

 

Besides reducing GHG emissions, recycling beverage containers generally reduces emissions of criteria air pollutants, airborne toxics, and waterborne pollutants and toxics. These additional emissions reductions due to the recycling of beverage containers in 1999 are shown in Table 4-2 from the BEAR report.

 

 

Energy Savings

 

Energy consumption in manufacturing and transportation is reduced by using recycled materials as feedstock.  For the glass, plastics and aluminum from recovered beverage containers, these energy savings can be estimated using EPA data on the energy requirements for products produced from both virgin and recycled materials.  The results of this analysis show that, in 1999, recycling of beverage containers reduced energy consumption by about 148 trillion Btu’s.  This is the energy content of about 32 million barrels of oil.  The specific reductions in energy use due to aluminum, glass and plastics recycling are shown in Table 4-1. There is an additional, indirect energy benefit due to the recycling of plastic containers.  Plastic containers are made from oil and hence, have a substantial energy content.  Recycling rather than discarding these containers reduced the need for oil or gas extraction to provide the feedstock for virgin resins, and so freed up oil and gas for future use.  In 1999, recycled plastic containers had the same energy content as about 3 million barrels of oil.

 

 

 

 

Land and Natural Resource Use Benefits

 

Container recovery and recycling avoids the natural resource use required to create virgin feedstocks, preserving them for future generations.  And since landfilling is the dominant method of disposal, and is expected to account for most of the growth in disposal through 2005,[11] recycling used beverage containers should reduce the growth in waste disposal and so avoids landfilling. Analysis shows that landfilling the containers recycled in 1999 would have required the use of about 20 million cubic yards of landfill space. A single landfill of this size, with a depth of 300 feet, would cover an area of about 40 acres. 

 

Benefits to the Economy

 

Recycling creates a significant number of jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector.  Recycling may also result in some job losses, in waste disposal and virgin material extraction and processing.  However, available studies suggest that recycling is likely to result in net additional direct employment on a nationwide basis.  Recycling is particularly effective in providing local economic benefits, as shown by a

recent study of Massachusetts.[12]  Additionally, a recent study conducted for the US EPA Office of Solid Waste, Macroeconomic Importance of Recycling and Remanufacturing, stresses the economic importance of recycling in improving the competitiveness of American industry world-wide, and so preserving manufacturing employment in the US.  Lastly, increasing the number of containers eligible for redemption provides more jobs for scavengers.

 

Benefits of Refillable bottles

 

The EPA prefers source reduction, which includes reuse, over all other waste management options including recycling.  This is because, in the EPA’s view, the best way to manage waste is to simply not generate it in the first place, so that it doesn’t need to be collected, treated, or disposed.  The benefits the EPA cites include reducing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and other environmental impacts.[2] In the case of beverage containers, the environmental benefits of reuse are quite clear. Refilling avoids all of the environmental emissions, energy use and natural resource use associated with container production from virgin or recycled feedstocks.  It also avoids the landfilling of discarded containers.  In the U.S. refillables provided local jobs in washing and refilling containers.  There are environmental impacts associated with container reuse. However, as noted in an article by Robert Steuteville in the September/October 1992 issue of In Business, life cycle studies have shown that refillables are the most environmentally benign beverage containers, even taking into account the transportation back to the plant, and the washing that is required for reuse.  A number of Canadian provinces provide deposits for refillable containers, particularly beer bottles.

 

-------------------------------------

Endnotes

 

 



[1] "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 1995 Update", Franklin Associates, LTD, for USEPA, EPA 530-R-96-001, March 1996.

 

[3] BEAR report indicates 100% of unclaimed nickels are escheated to Michigan; www.bottlebill.org indicates 75% are escheated to Michigan.

 

[6] Final Report of the Temporary State Commission on Returnable Beverage Containers, March 27,

      1985, p. 62.

 

[7] Projection from Center for Management Analysis, School of Business and Public Administration

    of Long Island University.  New York State Returnable Container Act:  A Preliminary Study (1984).

 

[10] BEAR report.

[11] According to projections provided in the EPA’s Characterization of MSW in the US – 1998 Update.

 

[12] See for example, “Massachusetts Recycle 2000: Baseline Report.” Prepared for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs by Skumatz Economic Research Associates and Sound Resource Management Group, Inc. December 1998.