Recycling Incentives, Such as Bottle Bills, Work

A 2002 report from the group Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling (BEAR) showed clearly that deposits are much more effective than other recycling programs in reducing overall waste. The BEAR report found that the combination of recycling methods employed in 10 deposit states (there are now 11) resulted in 490 beverage containers recycled per capita per year, vs. 191 containers per capita per year in the then-40 non-deposit states, which rely on curbside and drop-off programs. Though per-container recovery costs were slightly higher in deposit states -- an additional 1.5 cents per six-pack on average -- beverage container recovery rates in deposit states are more than 2.5 times higher than in states without bottle bills.

The California Refund Value (CRV) program included about 22 billion aluminum, glass, and plastic beverage containers sold in the state in 2007. Thanks in large part to the CRV incentive, nearly 15 billion of those containers were recycled. In a typical deposit state, 70 percent or more of the deposit containers are returned. This means taxpayers pay less for disposal, less for litter pickup, and less for curbside recycling.

Other studies tell us that beverage container materials comprise 40-60 percent of all litter. A study done by the California Department of Conservation showed that only a few years after the state’s bottle bill went into effect in 1987, the beverage container component of litter had been reduced 75 percent.  

A common argument against bottle bills is that they are "a hidden tax." Unlike taxes, however, container deposits are refundable.   Under deposit systems, the cost of recycling is borne by producers and consumers, not by government and taxpayers.