SB 1013 would add wine and spirits containers to the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, also known as a container deposit law or bottle bill.
Download PDF [PDF, 932KB]
The Container Recycling Institute (CRI) has been advocating for reform to California’s beverage container recycling program for more than a decade, and so we are delighted to see the conversation in the legislature turn toward bold proposals and acknowledgement of availability of funding for real program modernization. Download PDF [PDF, 286KB]
We are writing in support of SB1013, “An act to amend Sections 14504 and 14550 of the Public Resources Code, relating to recycling, and making an appropriation therefor...
Download PDF [364KB]
A “convenience zone” is defined as the area within a half-mile radius of a supermarket that has gross annual sales of at least $2 million. By statute, the intent is to have one redemption center in each convenience zone. This would ensure that it is just as easy to return an empty beverage container for refund as it is to purchase the beverage in the first place. Download PDF [PDF, 373KB]
CRI reviewed the per capita “nips” sales estimates in the “Connecticut Wine and Spirits Industry’s 2-Part Plan for 50 mls (Nips) and Glass Containers” and found that they differed dramatically from our BMDA derivations of “nips” sales (“2018 Beverage Market Data Analysis,” Container Recycling Institute, 2020). Download PDF [PDF, 267KB]
Long before one-way beverage bottles and cans came to dominate drink packaging in the mid-20th century,1 refillables were how Americans—and people around the world—consumed beer, soft drinks, and milk. Download PDF [PDF, 1MB]
Over the past several years, container deposit programs have been adopted at a rapid rate in nations across the globe. What's pushing the trend? And is it a preview of things to come in the U.S.? Download PDF [PDF, 908KB]
CRI has undertaken a limited review of RIT’s “Impact Study of NYS Bottle Bill Expansion” (Nov. 2019), which assesses economic impacts on various stakeholders if glass liquor and wine bottles (excluding plastic and aluminum containers) were to be covered by a deposit. Download PDF [PDF, 874KB]
Summary of Findings: The operators of curbside and drop-off programs in California received $193 million in revenue from CalRecycle payments and scrap sales for CRV beverage containers in 2017. The estimated cost for handling those containers was $43 million, leading to a calculation of $150 million in gross profits, or a 349% profit. Download PDF [PDF, 449KB]
A “convenience zone” is defined as the area within a half-mile radius of a supermarket that has gross annual sales of at least $2 million. By statute, the intent is to have one redemption center in each convenience zone. This would ensure that it is just as easy to return an empty beverage container for refund as it is to purchase the beverage in the first place. Download PDF [PDF, 373KB]
House Bill 2686*, “An Act Improving Recycling in the Commonwealth” would repeal the existing beverage container deposit law (the “bottle bill”), and in its place would impose a 1-cent fee on all carbonated and non-carbonated beverages. Collected revenues would be put into a “Municipal Recycling Enhancement Fund” (the Fund), with funding to be used for recycling and litter programs. The bill sunsets this fee after three years. Download PDF [PDF, 806KB]
As all recycling professionals know, recycling isn’t a zero-cost service, even though it is often provided for “free” to households. Providing recycling for “free” is a deliberate policy decision made by municipalities to incentivize participation by residents and businesses. Download PDF [PDF, 228KB]
The Container Recycling Institute (CRI) has analyzed Iowa HF 575, successor to HSB 163.1 It would repeal the beverage container deposit law (“bottle bill”), and would impose a 1¢ “recycling program fee” on carbonated beverages. Download PDF [PDF, 684KB]
This report examines a suite of economic impacts associated with the existing Massachusetts “Bottle Bill” (originally passed as the Beverage Container Recovery Law; H.2943/S.1588).
Get Download Link [PDF, 471KB]
Addendum April 10th, 2018 - Download PDF [PDF, 32KB]
Updated Imagery included here: Download PDF [PDF, 283KB]
California needs to help restore redemption center coverage in the “recycling deserts” in the state. Here’s why. (July 2017)
Download PDF [PDF, 29KB]
Jurisdictions across North America are pondering how to handle the challenging economics of glass recovery. A beverage container recycling specialist adds to the conversation with an in-depth look at the numbers from different glass programs around the globe.
Download PDF [PDF, 5.9MB]
The American Beverage Association (ABA) recently released an “Issue Analysis” which examines the impacts of Delaware’s new Universal Recycling Law, implemented in 2011. The Container Recycling Institute (CRI) has prepared this fact sheet to provide additional information not currently presented in ABA’s analysis.
Download PDF [PDF, 602KB]
Declining scrap prices coupled with problematic compensation formulas have produced processing payment shortfalls that have already forced the closure of more than 400 redemption centers in California, posing a serious threat to the state’s beverage container recycling infrastructure and sharply constricting consumers’ ability to recover the CRV (container refund value) to which they are entitled.
Download PDF [PDF, 602KB]
Though it would require a statutory change, CRI recommends that the processing payment calculation method be reevaluated to protect the solvency of the recycling centers upon which the California beverage container recycling infrastructure depends.
Download PDF [PDF, 310KB]
Encorp’s response letter to the BC Case Study - Download Here
This paper looks at litter cleanup efforts and associated costs in Michigan, and attempts to determine the proportion of litter composed of discarded beverage containers.
Download PDF
Listing of Beverage Container Recycling Rates by State for Deposit Containers Only.
Download PDF
The American Beverage Association (ABA) recently released an “Issue Analysis” which examines the impacts of Delaware’s new Universal Recycling Law, implemented in 2011. The Container Recycling Institute (CRI) has prepared this fact sheet to provide additional information not currently presented in ABA’s analysis.
Download PDF
An analysis of the effects of passage of S.379 on litter, recycling, employment, and state and local financing.
Download PDF [PDF, 117KB]
The Container Recycling Institute (CRI) undertook this case study of British Columbia’s container deposit-refund law (CDL) for two reasons: first, to expand CRI’s existing body of research on best practices for the recovery and quality recycling of packaging materials; and second, to investigate recent increases in container recycling fees (CRF) in the province, especially for glass containers.
Three pronounced trends in American beverage consumption and recycling patterns have emerged since CRI’s first BMDA looked at year 2000 data: overall sales growth, non-carbonated sales growth, and stagnating recycling rates—all of which are resulting in higher rates of landfilling, incineration and littering, and other negative environmental impacts.
Get Download Link [PDF, 2.1MB]
Is single-stream recycling service the salvation of all recycling programs or is there a better way forward? Our author digs into the untold story of real residue rates and a PREFERABLE METHOD to truly recycle more materials at materials recovery facilities.
December 2011 | While the recycling's impact on jobs has been the subject of several studies in recent years, Returning to Work is the first report to take into account the vital importance of material quality, throughput quantities, processing dynamics and end-user needs to analyze the net gains in domestic jobs when beverage containers are recovered through recycling.
December 2009 | While single-stream recycling is more convenient for consumers and results in lower costs than other collection systems, it also results in more contamination of collected materials, lower material quality, and increased waste. Using data from industry reports and interviews with recyclers, this report that highlights the economic and environmental impacts of switching to a single-stream system.
January 2009 | Three pronounced trends in American beverage consumption and recycling patterns have emerged since 2000: overall sales growth, non-carbonated sales growth, and stagnating recycling rates—all of which lead to increasing wasting. Using data from the 2008 Beverage Market Data Analysis, CRI has compiled a report discussing those trends.
February 2007 | Sales of bottled water in the U.S. are going up, up and up. In the three years between 2002 and 2005, sales doubled from from 15 billion units sold, to 29.8 billion. This is almost seven times the 3.8 billion units sold in 1997. At the same time, traditional fizzy drinks are losing market share. What does this all mean? More PET bottles produced, more wasted, and a smaller percentage recycled.
Augus 2006 | This "bottle bill primer" sets the record straight on the environmental and economic impacts of beverage container deposit systems (bottle bills), and uses documented evidence to rebut the arguments made by the anti-bottle bill, beverage industry lobby. The 10¢ Incentive to Recycle, revised with 2004 data, also contains updated facts, figures, charts and graphs.
June 2002 |This exciting report from CRI documents the sharp rise in aluminum can wasting over the last thirty years and draws a detailed picture of the environmental impacts of extracting energy and resources to replace wasted cans. The report presents reasons for the recent decline in aluminum can recycling rates, and offers solutions to reverse the wasting trend.
1997 | Extended Producer Responsibility is the concept that the primary responsibility for waste generated during a product's manufacturing and after the product is discarded, is that of the producer of the product. This primer goes on to explain the ultimate goals of EPR and the different forms of EPR policies, and discusses the reasons that manufacturers are reluctant to adopt these policies.
PDF,1Mb]
2006 Edition, by As You Sow and CRI [PDF,1.24Mb]