Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States


Limited Bottle Bills Stuck at Ten States: Benefit-Cost Review of Beverage Container Deposit Programs As They Exist and Upon Their Expansion to More Container Types in More States

Mark Cave Student ID 1055740

EVSP 502 Summer Professor Johnson September 25, 2012

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States


Abstract The author of this paper summarizes the unequivocal and singular recycling rate success realized by beverage container deposit programs (i.e. bottle bills), and statistics that show such programs save resources and money by shifting responsibility for externalized costs previously born by municipalities and the general public, to their internal sources – beverage producers, bottlers and consumers. From there he discusses the primary, not so obvious weapon that has been gift wrapped and handed to large corporations to impede the expansion of bottle bills geographically (beyond the ten states they are currently in) and compositionally (to most or all types of “mobile” containers). He reviews proposals and initiatives offered as alternatives and/or compliments to bottle bills, and he finishes by describing the only approach that actually will work at maximizing recycling and waste-stream removal of all types of recyclable packaging, including beverage containers.

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States The overall average recycling rate, by weight, of beverage containers in the forty American states without bottle bills is 24%; for the ten states with bottle bills, the recycling rate ranges from 66% to 96% (Galland, 2011, p. 12). This one comparative fact, when flushed out with numbers of containers involved, and the direct and indirect cost/impacts from low percentage recycling, should by itself galvanize the public and political support necessary to get bottle bills passed in the majority of states. This is a digression, however, to be analyzed towards the end of this paper. Before that, there will be – in chronological order – an explanation of the problems that make bottle bills so


necessary; the basic components of a bottle bill; some of the shared and unique characteristics of the bottle bills in place in ten states; the comparative advantages of bottle bills versus other recycling and waste reduction programs for beverage containers; and the “close the loop synergies” realizable upon combining bottle bills with other programs. The final item, focused upon during concluding discussions, will be a suggested three-pronged approach to making bottle bill legislation much more the norm rather than the exception. One caveat before reading on: while this analysis is inclusive of and generally applicable to all the main types of container recycling – aluminum, tin, glass and plastic – it is definitely slanted towards plastic, as that is the most under-recycled type of container, and arguably the one most detrimental to environmental and public health. In the United States, the recycling rate for all beverage containers is about 29% (Galland, p. 12). What kind of numbers result from the 71% of beverage containers that aren’t recycled, are tossed away or thrown out? The bulk of those containers that don’t end up buried in a landfill or incinerated for energy become litter. Besides being an eyesore in local communities, sometimes severe enough to depress business and local property values, litter catches rides on wind and

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States


water, and in drainage and sewer systems, to end up as contributory pollutants of waterways and ecosystems. Quantifying the adverse environmental and public health costs in dollar terms is nigh impossible, but there are estimated cleanup costs that, while surely less, are nevertheless still very expensive. Keep America Beautiful (KAB) estimated that in 2009 some $10.8 billion was spent on preventing and cleaning up litter, with states and municipalities responsible for $1.3 billion (11.5%) of that. Interestingly, businesses shouldered about 80% of that $10.8 billion, or $9.1 billion (Abbell, March 2012, p. 1; Keep American Beautiful, September 2009, pgs 4-5 to 49). A 1999 analysis of litter by Solid Waste Coordinators of Kentucky found that 58% of it was beverage containers. [University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center (UMD EFC), December 2011, p. 10] . Applying that percentage to KAB’s estimated costs for cleanup of all litter results in a rough approximation for cleanup of littered beverage containers: $5.28 billion. The Ocean Conservancy’s 2009 analysis of data from a single day of the International Coastal Cleanup put beverage containers in the top 10 for types of marine debris collected, at 17% ( 883,737 plastic bottles = 9%; 459,531 glass bottles and 457,631 aluminum beverage cans = 4% each). (Ocean Conservancy, 2010, p. 13). While that percentage and the associated numbers are not also roughly translatable to monetary costs, they still convey the fact that the total dollar amount for non-voluntary coastal cleanup of discarded beverage containers in the United States would be exceptionally high. Hitting home even more on the measurable and immeasurable costs associated with beverage container littering is the factoid that sixty to eighty percent of all marine debris starts out on land. There’s no data specific to beverage containers, but there’s little doubt that virtually all of those in the ocean got there from land. As already pointed out, it’s impossible to translate into dollars and cents the second- and third-effect impacts from not closing the loop and keeping beverage containers out of the waste

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States


stream; however the impacts and their immeasurable costs are indisputably gargantuan. Perhaps the most shocking, most astronomically expensive impact comes out of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP), a hundreds of square miles in area spiraling whirlpool, or gyre, of trash in the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii. Because it’s a vortex, the debris that collects there gets more and more concentrated over time. Over the decades that plastics have been accumulating, much of them have been broken down by wind, sun and waves into tiny pieces that now are so great in number that their total weight is more than the total weight of the plankton they’re floating amongst! The significance of that is made apparent by this quote: “We were 1,000 miles from shore, with no sign of human life for days, yet our human ‘footprint’ is now apparent there in one of the most remote places on the planet,” says Doug Woodring, co-founder and director of Project Kaisei. “It was shocking to see the amount of small pieces of plastic continuously found in all of our 100 nets, in over 1,200 miles of sampling. This should be a message to everyone that our consumption patterns, and ways in which we dispose of products, have failed us. The water in our oceans is like blood for our planet. If we continue to fill it with toxic materials such as plastic, it will be to the detriment of all life on Earth.” (Ocean Conservancy, p. 27) There clearly is a critical need to dramatically reduce the amount of beverage containers that end up as waste, as litter that pollutes and despoils ecosystems the world over. The most effective way to maximize recycling of any material, including beverage containers, is via multiple approaches so that a major block of the targeted item does not go smoothly and unchecked from producer to consumer to waste. That acknowledged, state and national container deposit legislation, even after being implemented in different forms and to

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States different degrees (i.e. deposit fees assessed, items covered, collection methodologies,


disbursement of unredeemed deposit revenues, etc), is so far the one and only approach that has quickly and dramatically driven up recycling rates and then kept them high. The general mechanics of a bottle bill are fairly simple and uniform across the ten U.S. states that have implemented them (OR, VT, MI, ME, IA, CT, MA, NY, CA, HI) (Container Recycling Institute – CRI – slideshow, 2009, slide 6); however, the revenue flows and transaction costs are more complex, and are handled in different ways. To discourage unconcerned discarding of beverage containers, consumers are incentivized to return them to a store (and/or, in some states, to redeem them at a redemption center), via a refundable deposit that’s placed on each container. In most states the deposit is 5 cents on a variety of carbonated and noncarbonated beverages except dairy products. Here, The CRI provides an excellent depiction of the deposit collection and redemption paths for bottle bill programs:

(CRI Slideshow, slide 4) When the distributor ships bottle bill beverages to the retailer, the per container deposit is added to the price charged to the retailer. The retailer passes that markup on – i.e., the consumer pays

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States the retail price plus the per container deposit fee. The customer may reclaim/redeem the deposit by bringing the container to an in-state retailer or – if the state has had them set up – a redemption center. Some beverage containers are not redeemed, meaning that there are deposit monies (unredeemed deposit revenues = UDR) still held by the distributor. Four of the ten bottle bill states mandate that distributors turn over all of the UDR (CA, CT, HI and MA) or most of it


(NY/rest kept by distributors; MI/rest kept by retailers). (CRI – fate of unclaimed deposits, 2011) There have been disagreements, sometimes leading to litigation, over who should get the UDR – the state, the distributor or the retailer. The distributors and retailers argued that they should get them to help offset their costs of maintaining the container return system. That argument, especially when made by distributors, has been countered by first pointing to two revenue sources – (1) the revenues gained from the sale of the returned plastic, aluminum and glass for recycling into new containers or other goods; and (2) the deposits collected from retailers that can be invested for short term gains – and then highlighting that unclaimed deposits would be a third revenue source, as tax-free, windfall profits. States and their supporters claim that unredeemed deposits should be treated like other abandoned property – turned over to the state and used for public benefit (CRI – fate of unclaimed deposits, 2011). So far, the courts have sided with the states of Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine. The above discussion gives a broad brushed description of how states differ in their disbursement of unclaimed deposits. It is also a very general statement, without delving into diversions and nuances, that states use the UDR to mostly cover expenses of administering and sustaining their container deposit program and for funding other environmental programs. Of far greater importance: a discussion of (1) the different types of beverages and/or containers that

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States states require be included in their deposit redemption programs; and (2) the deleterious effect of inflation upon the rate of container returns. Before noting the specific differences in types of beverages and containers covered by bottle bills, it is necessary to explain why the imposition of a deposit-and-return system is imposed on only beverage containers instead of on all recyclable containers. Beverage


containers make up 80% of all U.S. sold containers and are much more likely to be emptied very quickly away from home and therefore away from curbside recycling. Financially incentivizing return-for-recycling of those rapidly emptied items (hereinafter called “mobile containers”) is the most viable way to divert them from going into trash bins or becoming 40-60% of the litter stream. A much greater share of non-beverage containers – like peanut butter jars and shampoo bottles, to name just a couple of many - are emptied slowly at home and therefore captured by curbside recycling. (CRI Bottle Bill Resource Guide – FAQ, 2011). Another caveat to mention before getting into specifics on beverages and container types covered and not covered by bottle bills in individual states: the push has been on to broaden the bills, make them more inclusive of all types of beverages and containers less than a gallon in size. The primary difference among states in their current bottle bills is the inclusion or exclusion of noncarbonated beverages and/or water. Four states – Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Vermont – exclude all noncarbonated, nonalcoholic beverages. Connecticut, New York and Oregon include water and exclude other noncarbonated beverages. (CRI table, 2010). So, 80% (40/50) of states do not have a system in place for incentivizing the diversion from the waste stream of any and all mobile beverage containers; and 88% (44/50) of the states do not divert any noncarbonated, nonalcoholic mobile beverage containers, including water bottles! (CRI table, 2010). Some 30 billion single-serve bottles of water were sold in the U.S. in 2008

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States (Gleick, 2010, p.6), and the U.S. recycling rate for single serve water bottles was just over 32%


in 2010. (Resource Recycling, 2012). Even if consumption has dropped and recycling has risen since those years, there are indisputably still billions of bottles that are going to landfills each year, and other billions of bottles becoming litter that ends up in waterways and the oceans each year. That’s not even accounting for other types of noncarbonated beverages, like athletic drinks, and the ever growing variations and quantities of energy, fruit, vegetable and combination drinks in less than a gallon containers. They surely also number in the billions for United States consumption, waste and littering each and every year. Exacerbating the failure to remove from the waste stream so many containers, is the diminishing increases in numbers/percentages of returned/redeemed qualified containers in nine of the ten bottle bill states. The reason for such tapering off is inflation. The only state with a return deposit of 10 cents for all qualified containers is Michigan, which unfortunately is also one of the four bottle bill states that do not require deposits for noncarbonated beverages. The ensuing figures for redemption rates are generally the same for overall recycling rates, and the connection to inflation will remain implied until after the statistics are provided. Quite naturally, the percent redemption rate for Michigan has dipped the least and still remains in the high 90s. The next highest redemption rate is in Oregon, at 83%, which represents a drop of 5% from that state’s highest rate of 88% in 1994 (CRI redemption rates, 2011). That relatively high rate is rather anomalous, with plausible attribution being to the higher eco-consciousness of Oregon’s population relative to other states, and to Oregon being the first state to pass a bottle bill, in 1971 (CRI table, 2010). Massachusetts better represents the norm – its unclaimed deposits climbed from $20 million in 1997 to $31 million in 2001, and its redemption rate dropped from 78.3% to 69.8%. (CRI - fate of unclaimed deposits; CRI - redemption rates 2011)

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States


Of the nine states that charge a deposit of 5 cents per container, seven have had that charge in place since passage of their bottle bills in the late 1970s or early 1980s (the other two states are Hawaii, which implemented its bottle bill in January 2005, and California, which implemented its bottle bill in September 1987) . A nickel in 1971 is now worth just 1 cent. (CRI – fate of unclaimed deposits). For many people, redeeming containers for a nickel each isn’t worth the effort. In other words, the opportunity costs associated with the time and work required to collect the redemption fees are too high; opportunities – perceived or real – to do other things of more value or greater remuneration are squandered by going through the redemption process. So far, it’s been shown that the bottle bill most effective at removing beverage containers from the waste stream is one that is inclusive of all mobile containers – as is most nearly the case in Maine – and one that imposes a deposit price high enough to incentivize a 90+ percent redemption rate – as is still the case in Michigan, although time will inevitably bring inflation to bear and drive the rate down there too, especially when/if the country emerges from The Great Recession. Michigan increased its deposit to 10 cents in 1989. (CRI table, 2010). Going by that year, the rate of inflation would adjust the deposit rate of 5 cents that’s charged in the other states to 9 cents. (USDOL BLS CPI inflation calculator, 2012). Round up to 10 cents to match the Michigan rate and set a current standard, just as Oregon set the 5 cent standard in 1971. From that 10 cent starting point, what would work best moving forward is a deposit charge that increases at regular intervals in step with inflation – that would surely push the redemption rate to nearly 100% for covered mobile containers. With the currently toxic political climate and economic malaise, such an adjustment will be difficult in many states; however, while grow the calls for behavior that is more responsible and sustainable, bottle bills inclusive of containers for

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States all types of mobile beverages and with inflation adjusting deposits can be designed now for relatively quick introduction and passage at the opportune moment in the future. By paying to lobbyists and public relations firms huge sums of money each year, front groups for and companies within industries associated with the filling, distribution, and sale of beverage containers have been waging a war of disinformation and green washing in order to


stop, delay and/or dilute expansion or wider scale implementation of container deposit programs. (CRI – bottle bill opponents, 2011). These corporations and front groups engage in such efforts simply to continue for as long as possible their externalization of severe economic, environmental and public health costs. Particularly frustrating is the power of money over popularity. One small example of disinformation peddling is in the defeat this year in Massachusetts of legislation to expand bottle bill coverage to include noncarbonated beverages. In a June 2012 press release by the industry front group, Real Recycling for Massachusetts, ten reasons were offered for not expanding the bill. (Wareck, 2012). A discussion of just three of the assertions will go far in debunking all of them. 1. “The bottle bill is an unnecessary, new tax for consumers.” (Wareck, 2012). The one-way movement of more than 50% of beverage containers into the waste stream - as litter, as waterway pollution, and as landfill contributors– is, net, significantly more costly in dollars and in effects on ecosystem and public health. Deposits create lower costs for mobile beverage pollution prevention and litter diversion and properly shift the costs from taxpayers in general to the cost generators – beverage and container producers and – for those deposits not redeemed – consumers. 2. “The bottle bill is much more expensive than more comprehensive, effective recycling programs.” (Wareck, 2012). First off, this statement implies that different

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States types of recovery and recycling programs are mutually exclusive. The most effective way to recover, reuse and recycle containers of all kinds, mobile and not-so-mobile, is to utilize programs that operate simultaneously and synergistically. Secondly, deposit programs started from scratch carry higher initial costs; however, in the case of Massachusetts the deposit program infrastructure and methodology has been firmly established; actually, without an expanded bottle bill, insufficient economies of scale and revenue streams are pushing the network of privately owned redemption centers to collapse – half of them have shut down, the other half are being buried under twenty years of increasing costs and shrinking revenues (MA Sierra Club and MASSPIRG, July 2012, p. 24) . Thirdly, there’s this direct quote from the CRI Myths and Facts site: “The BEAR [(Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling)] report found that a combination of recycling methods in 10 deposits states recycles 490 containers per capita per year, at a cost of 1.53¢/unit, vs. 191 containers per capita per year at 1.25¢/unit in 40 non-deposit states (which rely on curbsides and drop-offs to do the whole job). In other words, at an additional cost of only 1.5¢ per six-pack, beverage container recovery rates in deposit states are more than 2.5 times higher than in states without bottle bills.” (CRI – bottle bill myths & facts. 2011). Surely, a full cradle-tograve or cradle-to-cradle benefit-to-cost analysis would result in a ratio much greater for a mix of programs that includes container deposits (especially if expanded and deposit increased) than the ratio for an approach without container deposits. Fourth and finally, the costs of bottle deposit programs that exist are properly born by consumers and producers, not by governments and taxpayers. (CRI – bottle bill myths & facts. 2011).


Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States 3. “The bottle bill is unpopular.” (Wareck, 2012). This reason is simply a bald faced lie! Refusal by lawmakers to vote in favor of a bottle bill is not at all equivalent to a bottle bill being unpopular. Failure to pass a bottle bill has overwhelmingly been a result of political pressure put on lawmakers by lobbyists for the deep-pocketed companies seeking to continue externalizing their costs. In fact, container deposit programs enjoy great support in the general population – 76% favor them, 24% oppose. (CRI, Deposit legislation… 2009) There just is no program more effective than the container deposit program at keeping mobile beverage containers out of the waste stream. That does not mean that other programs


should be ruled out. In fact, to most effectively maximize diversion of beverage containers from the waste stream, there must be a mix of approaches. Nationwide – be it in each state, split up by regions, or via a national program - there needs to be an inflation adjusted bottle bill that covers all mobile beverages of all sizes, a single-stream recycling program, and a pay as you throw trash collection program. A container deposit program must be limited to mobile beverages, for which it is uniquely qualified. To expand such a program to other containers would likely make it completely unmanageable and excessively expensive. Curbside recycling is much better suited to handling the non-mobile containers. To incentivize people to maximally separate recyclables from non-recyclables, the curbside recycling program should be made single stream (as opposed to dual stream - requiring separation of aluminum, metals and plastics from paper and cardboard) and it should be accompanied by a pay-as you-throw trash collection program, whereby residents pay garbage disposal fees proportional to the amount they throw out. Oftentimes municipalities effect such a program by requiring residents to pay a specific amount to buy uniquely marked trash bags – the number of bags placed out for weekly collection determines that resident’s trash

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States removal fee. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, pay-as-you-throw programs


reduce waste, and therefore increase curbside recycling – by 25 to 35 percent (O’Donnell, 2012) There’s an interesting approach to increasing recycling rates for all recyclable packaging, including mobile containers, that is gaining traction: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Under EPR, legislation would require that companies collect and recycle a certain percentage of the packaging they produce; however, the mechanism(s) for meeting that percentage would be left to the companies to design and implement. (Franklin, 1997) This in an exciting proposition, especially considering that EPR programs for packaging have been in place for some 20 years in Europe and (not as long) in Canada. (Fishbein, 1998). Those programs have led to many innovations that have reduced the amount of materials in original packaging, and have increased the rate of recycling for the packaging that still exists. In the United States, battle lines are being drawn between large corporations and their trade groups for and against EPR programs, especially mandated ones. For instance, on one hand Nestle Waters NA and Coca-Cola are speaking up in favor of legislated, mandatory EPR for packaging; while on the other hand Proctor & Gamble, General Mills and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are pushing back and calling for some sort of voluntary EPR programs. EPR proponents counter-argue that voluntary programs don’t work, that the bigger companies pay the costs for EPR programs while laggards enjoy a free ride. (Westervelt, 2012). A mandatory EPR program for all packaging, involving all package producers and users would spread costs and make them cheaper on an individual basis. Such a market-driven approach to making producers internalize hitherto externalized costs would seemingly be more attractive to those opposed to government mandates and regulations; however the political climate in this country is such that imposition of more regulation, even if

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States it’s less intrusive and market based, is going away from what the ruling extremists scream is needed – reduced and removed regulations and program mandates. A major driver helping to make EPR programs increasingly attractive is the cost savings the packagers would realize from the greatly increased volume of recycled materials. It is far less expensive to remanufacture packaging from ingredients with recycled content than from


virgin materials. It is also becoming costlier from a public and investor relations perspective to continue stonewalling about being socially responsible. (Washburn, 2012). Nestle Waters NA and Coca-Cola have lobbied long and hard against container deposit programs, which are a form of EPR, yet they are now pushing for state-level legislated EPR programs. (Washburn, 2012). Why this dichotomy? Some reasons have already been mentioned. One is that EPR programs, especially after being implemented in several states, would spread the wealth so that many more companies producing or handling both mobile and non-mobile packaging would spread and thin the financial burden involved in closing the loop. Also, unlike container deposit programs, the packaging producers would be able to simply shift some or all of the costs for EPR, in the form of higher prices for many of the packaged goods. To counter that concern, producers and proponents argue, reasonably, that EPR would drive down or eliminate fees that consumers pay for municipal and curb-side recycling. A plausible case to be made is that, by pushing EPR and fighting bottle bills, companies in the mobile container business are indefinitely delaying implementation of any program that increases the national recycling rate, especially of plastics. By doing that, they will continue to reap unreasonable profits while making taxpayers and the planet pay for their externalized costs. Regardless of that viewpoint’s accuracy, there is growing sentiment that delaying action has to

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States


end, and end right away – the recycling rate for mobile containers must increase dramatically and quickly. How do we reverse things, get companies and their executives to be more socially responsible so that the recycling rate for mobile containers, and all packaging, is raised as quickly as possible and to levels like 75% or higher? The first step is not obvious until stated – there must be a repeal of the Citizens United decision that has given corporations carte blanche to pour unlimited funds into influencing elections and politicians. Simultaneously, there needs to be passage of a constitutional amendment that prevents future reinstatement of free speech/political influence for corporations and industry front groups. From there, state and federal environmental and economic agencies need to form partnerships and embark on a multichannel ongoing campaign to educate their citizenry about the many and severe economic, ecological, environmental and public health costs associated with the current cradle-to-grave throwaway attitude that drives production and consumption of all goods, especially plastics, of which mobile beverage containers compose a significant share. Such an education campaign properly includes solutions. For reduction and recycling of plastic packaging and beverage containers, the only solution that fulfills the cradle-to-cradle theme that defines sustainability is one that incorporates all the approaches described in this paper. As recap, those approaches are implementation of right-priced beverage container deposit laws for comprehensive capture of all or nearly all types and sizes of mobile beverage containers; single-stream curbside recycling programs that maximize convenience for people; pay-as-you-throw trash disposal programs that incentivize the curbside recycling; and extended producer responsibility programs that correctly shift costs from taxpayers to producers and consumers, and that motivate design of reduced material packaging and increases of recycled

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States content in the packaging. Bottle bills should be emplaced before extended responsibility


programs, since they are far simpler and already being used in 10 states, and target an otherwise uncaptured market segment that disproportionately contributes to littering and ocean garbage patches. The education campaign will lay the groundwork; efforts, hopefully successful, to pass a constitutional amendment denying that corporations are people and that spending is free speech will weaken the outsized political influence of those corporations. After that, passage of legislation in states and regions, and perhaps on a national level, will become considerably more attainable. High population percentages are in favor of recycling, waste reduction, bottle bills and pursuit of sustainability. Referendums represent the best way to successfully leverage that popularity and move from attainability to reality. Yes, there are states that will have populations that defeat some or all of the referendums. However, there are also states that will pass the referendums. Those states will grow in number and their waste streams will shrink. As accrue both the benefits of the programs and the costs of staying with the status quo, the nonparticipating states will eventually come on board, to the collective relief and salvation of all life in this country.

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States References


Container Recycling Institute. (2011). Beverage container redemption rates in selected deposit states, vs. the U.S. average. Retrieved from Container Recycling Institute. (2011). Bottle bill resources guide – bottle bill myths and facts. Retrieved from Container Recycling Institute. (2011). Bottle bill resource guide: the fate of unclaimed or “abandoned” deposits. Retrieved from Container Recycling Institute. (2011). Bottle bill resource guide frequently asked questions. Retrieved from Container Recycling Institute. (2009). Container deposit legislation past, present and future. Retrieved from Container Recycling Institute. (1997, November 18). Extended producer responsibility: a primer. Retrieved from Container Recycling Institute. (2011). Table of bottle bills in 10 states. Retrieved from Franklin, P. (1997, November 18). Extended producer responsibility: a primer. Guest presentation at the Take it Back! 1997 Producer Responsibility Forum. Retrieved from Fishbein, B. (1998, October). EPR: What does it mean? Where is it headed? P2: Pollution Prevention Review, 8:4, n.p. Retrieved from

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States Galland, Ph.D., A. (2011). Waste & opportunity. U.S. beverage container recycling scorecard and report, 2011. Retrieved from Gleick, P. H. (2010). Bottled & sold: the story behind our obsession with bottled water. Washington, DC: Island Press Massachusetts Sierra Club & MASSPIRG. (July 2012). The impact of the bottle bill update on jobs in the economy. Retrieved from Mid Atlantic Solid Waste Consultants. (2009, September 18). Keep American Beautiful 2009 national visible litter survey and litter cost study. Retrieved from O’Donnell, L. (2012, July 29). Groups offer alternative to bottle bill expansion. Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Retrieved from Ocean Conservancy. (2010). International coastal cleanup 25 th anniversary 2010 report. Trash travels - from our hands to the sea, around the globe, and through time. Retrieved from Resource Recycling Editorial Staff. (April 2012). IBWA says over 32 percent of water bottles recycled. Retrieved from


United States Department of Labor. (2012). Bureau of Labor Statistics CPL inflation calculator. Retrieved from

Limited Bottle Bills Stuck At Ten States University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center. (2011, December 15). 2011 impact analysis of a beverage container deposit program in Maryland. Retrieved from


Washburn, M. (2012, June 20). Recycling reinvented: Nestle´ Waters and the extended producer responsibility model. GreenGoPost. Retrieved from Wareck, L. (2012, June 12). Top ten reasons the bottle bill is bad for Massachusetts. PR Newswire. Retrieved from Westervelt, A. (2012, April 27). How corporate America might just save recycling. Forbes. Retrieved from

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful