March 2012 Volume 25, Number 2 The Abell Report What we think about, and what we’d like you to think about Published as a community service by The Abell Foundation Uncapping the Pros and Cons of a Bottle Deposit Program Will a beverage-container deposit program reduce litter in Maryland? And at what cost? An examination of this issue—along with potential impacts on recycling rates, employment, beverage sales, and greenhouse gas emissions. By the University of Maryland The Effect on Litter Reduction ABELL SALUTES: Environmental Finance Center, in Litter is a universal problem with partnership with the Center for negative impacts that reach far “Year-Up”: Teaching IT Integrative Environmental Research beyond the community of origin. It and ECONorthwest not only decreases the aesthetic appeal skills, opening doors, of communities, which depresses everage-container deposit pro - changing lives. business and local property values, grams currently exist in 10 but litter also travels via wind and Gary Barnes Sutton, an 18-year Bstates across the country and water to pollute critical waterways old African American and 2009 grad - are under consideration in several and ecosystems. Traditional stormwa - uate of Mergenthaler (high school) others. These programs add a refund - ter systems, which tend to result in was hustling pizzas at $3.00 an hour able deposit (generally 5 or 10 cents) high-velocity flows of rainwater, exac - plus tips and making maybe $15,000 to the purchase price of a beverage erbate the problem. As a result, local a year in the culture of the working container. When the consumer and state governments and communi - poor, when he connected with a pro - returns the beverage container for ties across the country continue to gram called Year Up; some 14 recycling, the deposit is returned. The invest in surveys, cleanups, and litter- months later he is making $15.00 an unique nature of disposable beverage reducing technologies in an attempt hour and $30,000 a year as an infor - containers provides the opportunity to reduce these negative impacts. mation technician working in the to use a market-based system to Litter also adversely affects white-collar corporate world (T. incentivize the proper handling and tourism, and it degrades the ecology Rowe Price, Domino Sugar, Morgan disposal of these items. of land and water systems. But litter is Stanley), with prospects of rising However, deposit programs costly to clean up. A 2009 Keep income and the wholly different life remain highly debated, with strong America Beautiful report estimated that accompanies. For Gary and hun - supporters and detractors. The goal of that the U.S. spends nearly $10.8 bil - dreds of other young men and the University of Maryland Environ - lion annually on litter cleanup and women struggling in an unforgiving mental Finance Center (EFC) project prevention alone, with state and local workplace where jobs of any kind are team is to provide an objective analy - governments picking up 11.5 percent hard to come by, Year Up is transfor - sis that informs the decision-making of the cost, or about $1.3 billion. mative--changing young people’s process within the state of Maryland Businesses reportedly pay the brunt of workplace skills, income, lifestyle and as it considers legislation in the litter cleanup—$9.1 billion, or about aspirations. Of his Year-Up experi - future. This executive summary sum - 80 percent of the total cost. 1 The ence, Gary says in wonderment, marizes the team’s key findings associ - City of Baltimore spends approxi - “What an eye opener!” ated with extended research. A copy mately $10 million per year on litter Year Up is a nonprofit organiza - of the full report is available from The cleanup, including litter pickup in continued on page 12 Abell Foundation at www.abell.org. business districts ($2.3 million) and continued from page 1 Estimated Lower Estimated Upper Total Material Source/Location Bound (9% Beverage Bound (24% Collected mechanical street sweeping ($3.8 mil - Containers) Beverage Containers) lion). 2 These services are critical to Maryland SHA (2010) 7 24,092 lbs of debris 2,168.2 lbs 5,782.1 lbs residents and businesses and to main - 11,162 units plastic 312.5 lbs (actual) Assateague Coast (2010) 8 taining a competitive hub for the 3,207 units glass 1,343.3 lbs (actual) 3 city’s $3 billion tourism industry. Baltimore Inner Harbor 16 tons of debris 2,880 lbs 7,680 lbs Although many attempts have (2006-2007) 9 been made to quantify the beverage- Baltimore Community 144 tons of debris 25,920 lbs 69,120 lbs container component of litter, esti - Cleanup (2011) 10 mates vary widely because the vari - Anacostia Bandalong Trap 6,000 lbs annually 540 lbs 1,440 lbs ability in methodology makes it diffi - (2010) 11 cult to ascertain a precise percentage. Potomac Spring Cleanup 228 tons of debris 41,040 lbs 109,440 lbs This report cites data from numerous (2011) 12 studies that indicate beverage contain - Patapsco Cleanup (2007) 13 71,272 lbs of debris 6,415 lbs 17,105 lbs ers make up between 4.4 percent and 21 percent of the litter stream Table 1: Litter collected at recent cleanup events in Maryland throughout the country. One of the most comprehensive bottles—and using a plastic PET bot - used, including Adopt-a-Highway surveys is from the Ocean Conservan - tle weight as a proxy, 6 we can calculate programs, paid litter pickup, compre - cy. In 2009, it reported that beverage how much of the total litter collected hensive litter-control programs, litter containers were among the top 10 of at recent cleanups can be attributed to fees or taxes, paid targeted advertising, marine debris collected, and were beverage containers alone. extended producer responsibility pro - recorded at more than 6,000 sites One of the most comprehensive grams, and, of course, beverage-con - around the world on a single day dur - and current data sets available for tainer deposit programs. ing the International Coastal Maryland comes from the 2011 In fact, a review of the available lit - Cleanup. In fact, 9 percent of the Potomac River Watershed Cleanup erature shows that beverage-container debris collected on that day were plas - sponsored by the Alice Ferguson deposit programs have proven to be tic beverage bottles (883,737 bottles), Foundation. The 23rd annual cleanup the most effective method for reduc - 4 percent were glass beverage bottles cleared 48.4 tons (193,600 individual ing litter. Beverage deposits, in (459,531 bottles), and 4 percent were containers) of recyclable aluminum, essence, create an incentive to dispose aluminum beverage cans (457,631 glass, and plastic bottles from the of a container properly instead of cans)—totaling 17 percent. 4 watershed at 613 sites located in leaving the container to pollute the Though data for Maryland are Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, environment as trash. States that have fragmented and largely incomplete, a Pennsylvania, and the District of enacted deposit programs report sig - series of litter surveys and clean-ups Columbia. 14 This tonnage represents nificant reductions in beverage con - provides insight into the scope and about 21 percent of all waste collect - tainers in the litter stream. Hawaii, for composition of litter in the state. ed, marking the upper bound of the example, saw a 60 percent reduction Using the estimate suggested in pro - national range discussed above. in beverage containers as a percentage posed House Bill 839 5—that between So how can a state address this lit - of total litter between 2005 (the year 9 percent and 24 percent of Mary - ter problem? There are a number of the beverage deposit program was land’s litter (by weight) is made up of practices and programs that may be implemented) and 2008. 15 (This The Abell Report is published quarterly by The Abell Foundation 111 S. Calvert Street, 23rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-6174 • (410) 547-1300 • Fax (410) 539-6579 The Abell Reports on the Web: www.abell.org 2 continued from page 2 State Beverage Container Litter Reduction Total Litter Reduction trend reversed slightly in subsequent Iowa 76% 19 39% 20 years with 2010 data showing a 1.5 Maine 69-77% 21 34-64% 22 percent increase in beverage contain - Massachusetts N/A 30-35% 23 ers as a percentage of total litter.) 16 There is some literature that indicates Michigan 84% 24 41% 25 that other forms of litter are reduced New York 70-80% 26 30% 27 as a result of deposit programs as well Oregon 83% 28 47% 29 (see Table 2 below). 17 While this may be the case, the EFC’s research indi - Vermont 83% 30 35% 31 cates that litter-reduction benefits of Table 2: Litter reductions after implementation of a beverage-container deposit bill 32 deposit programs can only be quanti - fied to any degree of certainty with tively simple in concept, the revenue ated beverages sold in glass, plastic, or regard to beverage-container litter. flows and transaction costs associated aluminum containers typically with Table 2, below, shows self-reported with these programs can be complex. the exception of dairy products. 33,34 litter data to the U.S. Senate Com - Further, how these costs and revenue Figure 1, below, shows the flow of mittee on Environment and Public flows are accounted for will determine deposits (solid lines) and bottles (dot - Works in 2002 from seven states that the long-term sustainability of the ted lines) in a bottle-deposit program. have enacted bottle-deposit legisla - program and the responsibilities of First, consider a bottle that is pur - tion.