Mission We turn your love of the Great Outdoors into the laws that protect it.

We provide reliable information that helps you make decisions for your family. Check My Lake Don’t Trash the Phone Book Legacy Destination Weekends

My friends have a name for me

Solution: Offer a refund to customers who choose to recycle beverage containers.

Why Beverage Containers? ó Consumed on the go (Industry estimates that one

third of all soft drinks sold are consumed away from home)

ó Consume large amounts of energy in the manufacturing process

ó Significant greenhouse gas emissions can be avoided by recycling beverage containers rather than manufacturing new ones

Updating the program

Updating the program

ó Bottle sorting is a waste of time

ó Redemption centers should be able to contract with whoever they choose to haul away materials

ó Haulers should be able to redeem containers left in bins

ó Returns should be based on beverage type, not brand

ó Requiring everyone who sells beverages to redeem containers is untenable

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Percent of Beverage Containers Recycled vs. All Containers Sold, Whether Deposit or Not

2010 preliminary estimates

States with Recycling Refunds

50% of all beverage containers

recycled in the U.S. come

from these 10 states

Canadian Provinces with Recycling Refunds

Quebec

British Columbia

Newfoundland

Nova Scotia

Ontario

Alberta

New Brunswick

Saskatchewan

Prince Edward Island

Yukon

Recycling Refund programs result in higher beverage container recycling rates

Average recycling rates (by weight)

Source: CRI’s 2008 Beverage Market Data Analysis (using 2006 data)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

11 deposit states 39 non-deposit states

Aluminum cans

PET plastic bottles

Glass bottles

Total, 3 materials

Recovery Rates § California: 82% (includes curbside)

§ OR: 84% for deposit containers; 37% for non-deposit containers (2005)

§ HI: 76% for 2010/11

§ Range from 67% in NY (2007) to 97% in MI (10 cent deposit)

Container Recycling Institute © 2009

Recycling Refunds reduce litter State Beverage Container

Litter Reduced Total Litter Reduced

NY 70 - 80% 30% OR 83% 47% VT 76% 35% ME 69 - 77% 35 - 56% MI 80% 38% IA 77% 38%

Source: “Trade-offs Involved in Beverage Container Deposit Legislation”, US GAO, 1990.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2005: Hawaii’s CDL program introduced

P

erce

ntag

e

Source: Ocean Conservancy International Coastal Cleanup, 2003 - 2010

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2008: 60% reduction three years after implementation!

Per

cent

age

Source: Ocean Conservancy International Coastal Cleanup, 2003 -

2002 BEAR multi-stakeholder group findings

n The 10 bottle bill states recycle 490 containers per capita per year, at a cost of 1.53 cents per unit.

n The 40 non-bottle bill states recycle 191 containers per capita per year, at a cost of 1.24 cents per unit.

Thus, for a minimal price increase, more than two

and a half times as many containers are recovered!

Note: the 11th bottle bill state, Hawaii implemented their law in 2005

Recycling Refunds decrease taxpayer burden

“…it (the Returnable Container Act - RCA) has internalized the cost of solid waste management for beverage containers covered by the RCA…Therefore the taxpayer does not have to subsidize the disposal of empty beverage containers.”

Then-Governor of New York George Pataki

Cost Savings for Municipalities SAVINGS ON:

n Collection costs for recyclables

n Processing costs for recyclables

n Collection costs for disposal

n Landfill tipping fees

n Litter collection pick-up costs

n Collection from public litter bins

n Storm drain (or waterway) cleanup costs

n Monetization of environmental benefits

REVENUE LOST:

n Sale of recyclables (scrap value)