WA trails its neighbors’ beverage recycling rates. A bottle bill can change that | Opinion

In promoting curbside beverage container recycling as a better option than bottle recycling deposit-return programs (or bottle bills), Brad Lovaas of the Washington Refuse and Recycling Association fails to address several important facts about how and why a bottle bill would benefit Washington.

Decades of data show that bottle bills — which enable consumers to return empty bottles and cans to a redemption location and receive back the deposit they paid upon purchase — dramatically increase recycling rates. Our analysis at the Container Recycling Institute estimates Washington’s current beverage container recycling rate at 28% — somewhat higher than the rate in most non-bottle bill states, but not close to the rates in bottle bill jurisdictions. We know Washingtonians want to recycle and improve the environment, but there are simply no system improvements that can significantly move the needle on that number.

Washington’s Department of Commerce and Department of Ecology have both studied this issue and recommended the implementation of a bottle bill in the state. We only need to look at Washington’s southern and northern neighbors to see why.

Both Oregon and British Columbia operate well-structured container deposit laws, along with curbside systems. In 2021, Oregon’s bottle and can redemption rate was 81% and B.C.’s was 76%. Program enhancements over the years, such as increases in deposit amounts and types of beverages covered, continue to improve effectiveness. And they’re very popular with consumers. For example, a 2019 survey of Oregonians found that 97% are in favor of the existing deposit legislation.

Nationwide data further demonstrate the difference deposit-return systems make. Throughout the U.S., beverage containers on deposit in the 10 bottle bill states have a redemption rate of 65%. In contrast, containers without deposits (in both bottle bill and non-bottle bill states) have a 24% recycling rate (without deductions for contamination).

There are several reasons why curbside systems alone cannot achieve the meaningful recycling rates needed to effectively achieve goals we all share: less litter and marine debris; reduced energy use and carbon emissions (because fewer containers need to be made from previously unused raw materials); and more high-quality scrap to manufacture new products.

Despite what many consumers believe, not everything collected from curbside bins gets made into new products. The contamination and commingling of bottles and cans with other materials, along with breakage, results in lower-quality materials that are “downcycled” into something that cannot be recycled again, or even sent to landfills. According to a 2017 report by the National Association for PET Container Resources, polyethylene terephthalate plastic (PET) that is sourced from bottle bill programs yields 88% usable end product, compared to a 68% usable end product yield from the more contaminated PET plastic collected through curbside programs.

Curbside programs’ recycling rates also fall short because they overwhelmingly focus on beverages consumed at home — mainly single-family residences — but are not as widely available to multi-family dwellings or worksites. These systems also do not adequately address the significant number of beverage containers consumed away from home and on the go.

Bottle bills clearly work, and combined with curbside programs provide dramatically higher beverage container recycling rates than curbside alone ever can.

So why does the Washington Refuse and Recycling Association, which represents the state’s solid waste handling industry, call them a bad idea?

Is it because used beverage containers would not move through curbside programs, and instead would go through an alternate, “competing” system — one that is not owned by its member companies? Is it because some of its member companies own landfills, and bottle bills reduce the amount of landfilled material?

What we do know is that governments worldwide are increasingly proposing and adopting container deposit laws even with the presence of curbside recycling. Maybe it’s because these laws work.

We encourage Washington to join its neighbors in passing a beverage container deposit law to increase recycling rates — helping to address our climate, plastic pollution and marine debris crises while creating a more sustainable future for generations to come.

Susan Collins is president of the nonprofit Container Recycling Institute, which produces original research, objective analysis, responsible advocacy and wide-ranging education on beverage container recycling.