Bottle Bills - An Important Part of the Overall Solution

The question is often asked, "Which is better, deposits or curbside, buybacks or drop-offs?" The answer is that these recycling options are not mutually exclusive, but can all be part of a comprehensive approach to recycling.

The argument has been wrongly cast in either/or terms. Policymakers must remain clear about what it is they want to accomplish. If the goal is maximum recovery of recyclables and maximum waste diversion, then a combination of recovery options should be employed to ensure the highest diversion/recovery rates possible.

Removing More for Less

Franklin Associates, Ltd. in The role of Beverage Containers in Recycling and Solid Waste Management: A Perspective for the 1990s, compared the number of tons recovered with a combined curbside/deposit system vs. a curbside system only. Data from the study showed that the combined system of deposits and curbside diverts 45 percent more from the waste stream in Vermont than a curbside program alone could accomplish, and 17 percent more in New York State.

The Seattle Solid Waste Utility studied the impact of a bottle bill on their successful curbside recycling program and found that a combined curbside/deposit system would divert more tonnage AND would result in a cost savings to the city of between $591,245 and $849,219 annually. The study concluded that even after compensating recycling companies for lost collection revenue and lost revenue from the sale of recyclables, the combined system would "divert additional tonnage with no significant impact to either City costs or curbside recycling profits."

Deposit Systems and Curbside Recycling are Compatible

Deposit systems in no way 'threaten' curbside programs, but rather enhance them. Biocycle's 1999 "State of Garbage" report revealed that, on average, only 48 percent of the population in the forty non-bottle bill states is served by curbside recycling, while 64 percent of the population in the ten bottle bill states is served by curbside recycling.