- Rockefeller Foundation Will Dump Investments in Fossil Fuels
- New Rules Mean Hundreds in Energy Savings With Your Next Refrigerator
- California Legislature Approves Ban on Plastic Grocery Bags
- Guzzle or Sip? Best Cars for Fuel Economy (Plus Top Vehicles for Seniors)
- The Fight for the Right to Hang a Clothesline
- Does it Pay to Raise Chickens in Your Backyard?
- Solar Gardens: A Bright Idea for Homeowners?
- 5 Strange Ways to Stay Cool in the Summer
The following post comes from Len Penzo at partner site LenPenzo.com.
Ten states have some form of bottle law requiring deposits on certain aluminum and glass containers that can be returned for a refund. In addition to my home state of California, the others are: Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont.
I’ve already written one post about why I hate bottle redemption fees. In this one I’ll list the 10 biggest reasons…
- They do little to help the environment. That’s because bottles are a very small portion of the so-called “waste stream.”
- Depending on where you live, deposits are not fully reimbursed. In California, for example, distribution center reimbursements are determined via weight – and that total is usually far less than the actual deposits.
- The bottle redemption fee model is inefficient. It’s more expensive than other recycling solutions, like the now-ubiquitous and highly successful curbside pick-up programs.
- Bottle redemption fees are inconvenient to redeem. To get my money back, I’m forced to store my empties until I’ve accumulated enough to hopefully make the drive to a recycling center worthwhile, which is why:
- I never get a single penny of the fees refunded to me. That’s because, when it comes right down to it, the hassle I must endure to redeem the deposits isn’t worth it.
- Those who do reclaim their deposits are creating new environmental burdens. Driving to those redemption centers increases fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. That’s especially infuriating when you consider…
- Curbside recycling programs have been shown to be more effective. Delaware finally repealed its law in 2009 after recognizing that three neighboring states had higher recycling rates despite the lack of bottle redemption fees.
- Bottle redemption fees are thinly disguised efforts to keep state coffers filled. In fact, they act as a regressive tax on consumers.
- Bottle redemption fees are thinly disguised efforts to keep state coffers filled (Part II). If not, why did California lawmakers decide to make the fees subject to sales tax? Add it all up and the only logical conclusion is…
- Bottle redemption fees have clearly outlived their usefulness. Which is why it’s time for them to go out with the rest of the trash.
Hey, I’m not sayin’. I’m just sayin’.