Team One Brett Baumgartner Lauren Butz Zack DeMar Katherine Hanson Phil Lewis Brian Luevano Penelope Scott Dan Sullivan 1

Problem

 The US consumes 1500 plastic water bottles every second  The plastics used degrade very slowly  Cause of the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”  Plastic can be remolded and formed into new bottles 2

Bottle Bill Background

How It Works

 The consumer pays a deposit when purchasing the bottle and gets it back when they recycle it

How It Started

 Empty bottles were littering the streets  Failed attempt in Virginia  First successful bill was passed in Oregon 3

Oregon: Bottle Bill

 Established in 1971 known as the “Bottle Bill”  Created friction between large bottle producers  Reduced production costs  Competed with local bottlers 4

Oregon: Bottle Bill

Benefits

 Energy conservation   A ton of plastic bottles saves approx. 3.8 barrels of oil Recycled materials uses 2/3 less energy than raw materials

Costs

 Inflation   1971 5¢= 28¢ in 2001 18 pack=$5.04 rather than 90¢  Reduction in costs   In 1971 Marion County spent $20,000 on litter removal

Estimated $100,000

 Breakage and contamination  “down cycling” 5

Oregon

 Improvements Needed:  Lack of increases in redeemable deposits   Deposits have not taken inflation into effect Decreasing incentive to return/recycle bottles  Less willing for individuals to participate  in the effects of the bill possible decreases 6

Hawaii: Bottle Bill

        Solid Waste Management; Deposit Beverage Container Law (Act 176) Only state without curbside recycling Goal: Increase recycling and reduce littering Implemented on January, 1 st 2005 5 cents redeemable deposit Container fee is 1 cent per container Redemption rate exceeds 70% in a year the fee is raised .5 cents (1.5 cents per container) Consumer receives 3.5 to 4 cents for that container. 7

Hawaii: Costs and Benefits

  Costs   Not efficient due to lack of oversight Potential Fraud due to over reliance on self-reporting from distributors and redemption centers Benefits   +4.7 billion beverage containers recycled Gives an incentive to recycle   Reduces litter Hawaii reached a 79% recycling rate (2009) 8

Hawaii

 Improvements Needed  Not enough state supervision  Loss of money  Operation issues  Lack of awareness 9

Cost Benefit Analysis

Year Cost savings in nominal terms Future cost savings in real dollars Present value 1 2 $100,000 $100,000 $97,561 $95,181 $89,097 $79,382 3 4 $100,000 $100,000 $92,860 $90,595 $70,727 $63,016 5 $100,000 Inflation rate = 2.5% Discount rate = 9.5% $88,385 $56,145 In 5 years, a total cost savings of $358,366.75

10

Cost-Benefit Analysis: AEM Model • • • Overall environmental quality (benefit) defined: Reduction of litter caused by irresponsible bottle disposal Expressed on x-axis Scale of 1 to 10, 10 being highest environmental quality $250,00 $200,00 $150,00 • • Cost to consumer Bottle Bill shifts marginal cost curve from MC to MC_New, effectively lowering the cost to consumer and raising environmental quality Example: Instead of bottle exchange, Hawaii decides to implement curb-side recycling because it’s cheaper and more efficient. Also, this would eliminate the problem of fraudulent reporting by businesses.

$100,00 $50,00 $0,00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D=MB MC MC_New 11

The Future of the Bottle Bill

 11

current bottle bills

  Beverage production industry Retail industry 

Deposit law progress



Arizona’s bottle bills

 Title: “beverage containers; recycling fund; redemption” 12

Conclusion

 Bottle Bills are great ways to reduce waste  Proper incentives to increase recycling  Vulnerable to market inefficiencies  What can you do to encourage recycling laws and their efficacy?

13

Questions??

14