Opinion: Consumer convenience is key to making bottle bills work

Since the 1970s, when the “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” campaign was born, we’ve all been taught that if we put our food and beverage containers and cardboard in a special bin, these materials will receive new life.

Unfortunately, as single-use containers have become more popular, this just hasn’t been the case. But the good news is that policymakers in California (and beyond) are exploring additional ways to increase recycling and decrease the need to manufacture packaging out of virgin materials.

Consumers want to do the right thing, but recycling the right way can be difficult for even the most astute environmentalists. This is especially true when consuming products such as bottled and canned drinks on the go.

Enter recycling refunds or bottle bills.

The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, implemented in 1987, has generally proven to be a success story. According to CalRecycle, in 2021 consumers recycled 68% of eligible beverage containers, and since 2016, roughly 88% of the containers recycled were redeemed at redemption centers or retail stores.

While the 68% recycling rate dwarfs many states without deposit programs, the California system has experienced significant challenges. As future legislation is considered at both the state and national levels, lawmakers should look to California, where many lessons can be learned. Bottle bills must be designed and implemented — and in California’s case, updated — using sound principles.

Last year, California sought to update its nearly four-decade-old bottle bill with Senate Bill 1013. Unfortunately, the legislation scrapped the important $100 daily fee for retailers who refused to accept returned containers.

We know from the best programs in the United States that retailer participation is key to success. Though powerful retail companies sometimes cite inconvenience as a reason they opt out, the truth is technology has made it easier than ever to participate in the return system. But without the implementation of the daily fee, there is no incentive for retailers to care about the program.

A well-designed system helps ensure that all consumers can easily get their recycling refund by being convenient and equitable. Returning the container should be as easy as buying it. That’s why retailer participation — even if it’s just bag drops and reverse vending machines outside the store — is a must. Opting out cannot be an option.

In addition to compelling a return-to-retail scheme, lawmakers should expand the program to include all beverage container types, with very limited exceptions. Many drinks — mini liquor bottles, canned wine and spirits, juices, and water in multi-layered cartons — are often left out of deposit programs and, thus, often end up in landfills.

When redemption is convenient and more containers are included, recycling refund programs can create economic opportunities for both consumers and retailers. In California, we’ve seen the benefit to individuals and families who collect and redeem cans to generate or supplement their income. These “canners” are incentivized to help reduce litter and, when collecting their recycling refund at retailers, will often patronize the store buying essential goods. Ryan Castalia, executive director of Sure We Can, has said of New York’s efforts to modernize its beverage container deposit system, “The Bottle Bill is an engine for environmental justice. For decades, canners, many of whom are among New York’s most marginalized, have been driving the state’s most effective recycling system…”

Successful bottle bills start with simple and convenient consumer redemption for everyone. It’s now up to California and other state governments to learn from our program’s missteps and find a better way.

Ken McEldowney is a senior fellow at Consumer Action, a San Francisco-based national consumer advocacy and education organization.