Should Missouri Have a Bottle Deposit Law?

July 31, 2009

Should Missouri Have a Bottle Deposit Law?

Last night at the Cardinals game, a friend of mine and I discussed the bottle deposit law. It came up because we discussed how they have gotten rid of beer cans entirely at Busch this year. You can only buy your $27 dollar beers on tap or in plastic bottles. This is regrettable, because aluminum is so easy to recycle, although plastic can obviously be recycled, too. Also, I had just returned from a trip to Michigan, with its famous 10-cent deposit.

So, should Missouri institute a deposit law of either a nickel or dime? I think it should. It would be one way to encourage positive social behavior (recycling bottles) through incentives rather than directives. You don’t have to recycle if you don’t want to, it will just cost you $1.20 extra per case of beer. This is not a tax you have to pay, it is one you choose to pay, and the behavior encouraged is so simple to do it can hardly be considered onerous or burdensome. So, I say bring on a 5- or 10-cent deposit law in Missouri. Let me know what you think in the comments.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

13 Comments »

Boo.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — July 31, 2009 @ 2:14 p.m.
I drink a lot of soda, and am willing to crush, store and transport the cans to recover my deposit. But most people probably aren’t and I’d rather keep my ten cents in the first place, really.

Comment by Josh Smith — July 31, 2009 @ 3:03 p.m.
We didn’t have to crush the cans we returned when we were in Michigan, just store and transport back. It was very, very easy. And it does not have to be ten cents: most states have it at five.

Comment by David Stokes — July 31, 2009 @ 4:01 p.m.
Josh:
You are correct, most ppl wont do this and will just throw away the cans regardless. However, homeless have a comparative advantage in picking up primary consumers’ trash. They will reap the consumer surplus forfeited by first-users. This has a side benefit of out-sourcing some amount of street cleaning. I dont litter under normal circumstance, but I feel no qualm whatsoever throwing a can on the ground bc I know a bum will pick it up. In fact this makes it easier for them bc they dont have to hunt for it in dumpsters. Anecdotally this works, as I never see cans around my neighborhood more than 24hrs, while other debris lingers.
It could be argued that a deposit on ALL trash-creating products, would be equivalent to a consumption tax; both eliminating the need to charge for municipal garbage service, and give income to otherwise unemployable ppl, reducing need for welfare services. Also this is not dependent on govt being able to run a cost-effective recycling program. The deposit could be merged with sales tax to prevent bureacratic growth while keeping revenue static (ie you pay 25 cents in tax, and can get back 10 cents when you return the detritus). If the rate is judged too high then consumers could do the legwork of returning it themselves.

Comment by vroman — July 31, 2009 @ 4:19 p.m.
No. The costs are born out by the grocery stores. The way the deposit recycling works is that you collect cans and bottles in a trash bag in your garage (or the hallway of your apartment :( if you don’t have a house) and then take your bag to the grocery store or big box store where you feed all the cans one at a time into machines that then spit out a receipt you take to a cash register which they then apply to your purchases or give to you as cash. They then send their receipts and wait for the state to pay them since when the cans/bottles are sold you send the money to the state since they will not necessarily be returned to your location and unless you are a grocery store or big box store you are unable to take returns. It’s a pain in the ass for stores and consumers and plenty of consumers don’t even bother with it and just wait for children or poor people to come along and take the cans/bottles. I liked it when I was a teenager living in Michigan and could make extra money from it since I lived in a giant apartment community walking distance from a 24 hr grocery store (although I also disliked the extra work it gave me at my job at Dollar Tree) but now it would just be lots of wasted gas going to the grocery store to return cans. Which destroys the environmental aspect of it anyway and ends up being me spending more money so that the state can spend more money in order to take recycling out of my hands. Realistically RIGHT NOW anyone throwing away aluminum cans is paying for it since they could be turning them in to recycling centers for profit. This is all aside from the fact that this is using the government to enforce behaviors you find desirable and in that sense is no different than sin taxes or helmet laws. Societal pressure toward normative behavior is fine. Government enforcement of it is not.

Comment by S/A — July 31, 2009 @ 10:25 p.m.
So I was reposting Facebook comments and it carried the read mores over… heh

Comment by S/A — July 31, 2009 @ 10:28 p.m.
I lived in Michigan for 14 years: Almost EVERYBODY brought back their containers. And for those who didn’t there was a thriving side business of people foraging for bottles. It really has worked to clean up Michigan.
And if you’re going to do it, it should be 10 cents, because 5 cents might not be enough of a cost to encourage returns.
I am sensitive to the argument that private sector recycling, or market forces, should be brought to bear, but the lefty side of me says there is a greater good that requires government intervention to carry out.

Comment by Jack Naudi — July 31, 2009 @ 11:03 p.m.
Yeah the issue is not that the bottles don’t get returned. The issue is that between the increased number of trips to the store, paper work from all the stores selling canned/bottled beverages and energy used by the machines to crush each can going through the revolver instead of crushing lots at once like commercial recycling centers I’d be surprised if there is any real environmental benefit left. And taking yet another avenue of stores doing governments work for them is not great.

Comment by S/A — August 1, 2009 @ 12:01 a.m.
Yes! A bottle/can deposit about triples the recycling rate and reduces litter. Even though aluminum does have the incentive over plastic of having a scrap value (therefore some people will collect their cans and take them to a recycling center), the recycling rate on cans isn’t really much higher than plastic bottles. People “do bother” to return for the 5 or 10 cent refund, infact in MI about 97% of deposit containers are returned for recycling. Deposits are an effective program that work very well and it makes more sense than local governments and taxpayers being stuck with the high cost of litter cleanup, waste disposal and curbside recycling. There is nothing complicated about taking empties back to the store when you’re returning to buy more soda or beer. As to the concern about retailers handling the containers, many states now use redemption centers which are next to or near the grocery stores. California for example the retailers and distributors are basically not involved at all and their deposit program is a great way to fund local recycling. Due to the bottle bill “Californians have recycled more than 10 million tons of beverage containers (nearly 80%.) No other recycling program or policy in CA has resulted in higher recycling levels, and no program of its kind in the country has been found to be more cost effective.”

Comment by Steve — August 1, 2009 @ 10:58 a.m.
I really don’t think there are many increased trips – it just becomes something you bring along with you to do when you go to the store for other reasons. I don’t know how exactly they work it for the stores involved, but I have to guess they receive some money back for the work they do. Sort of like how businesses that pay their withheld MO state sales and income taxes on time get to keep a small amount of that money as a payment for doing the collecting. If they don’t get some of the money, than any Missouri plan should put that in.

Comment by David Stokes — August 1, 2009 @ 5:34 p.m.
What about recycling for everything that’s not a beverage container? We tried the deposit law in Columbia, and while it works, there’s a better way. The blue bag system they use now is much easier. The best way to encourage recycling is to make it easy for citizens.

Comment by JW — August 3, 2009 @ 11:50 a.m.
St. Louis county has competing trash disposal services that people pay for. I would recommend any area with monopolized trash service switch.

You have to remember to bring the cans along, lug them along w/ your other stuff and in the case of people working later shifts find a place that is 24 hrs. You create extra work for people in the areas that have curbside recycling unless they want to lose money. It’s annoying. But that’s all besides the point.

It is not okay to use government to enforce your beliefs of what a person SHOULD do. If you take government beyond the scope of rights enforcement or service providing into the field of changing behavior it is inconsistent to take issue with others doing the same. In other words the proposed plan where people are forced to buy health insurance or pay a penalty is fine. Forcing people to save for retirement or pay a penalty is fine. Prohibiting cigarettes, alcohol, drug use, fast food, or whatever else anyone may take issue with is fine as long as the punishment is a fine.

Comment by S/A — August 3, 2009 @ 8:27 p.m.
Yes, start charging the 5 to 10 cents. As I will return mine so it cost me nothing, then spend my time collecting from the lazy people, like I did when I was young; collecting pop bottles! Even paid for Gas to cruise the main when in High School. Bring it on!

Comment by Yes, start charging the 5 to 10 cents — February 6, 2012 @ 12:37 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

Boo.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — July 31, 2009 @ 2:14 p.m.

I drink a lot of soda, and am willing to crush, store and transport the cans to recover my deposit. But most people probably aren’t and I’d rather keep my ten cents in the first place, really.

Comment by Josh Smith — July 31, 2009 @ 3:03 p.m.

We didn’t have to crush the cans we returned when we were in Michigan, just store and transport back. It was very, very easy. And it does not have to be ten cents: most states have it at five.

Comment by David Stokes — July 31, 2009 @ 4:01 p.m.

Josh:
You are correct, most ppl wont do this and will just throw away the cans regardless. However, homeless have a comparative advantage in picking up primary consumers’ trash. They will reap the consumer surplus forfeited by first-users. This has a side benefit of out-sourcing some amount of street cleaning. I dont litter under normal circumstance, but I feel no qualm whatsoever throwing a can on the ground bc I know a bum will pick it up. In fact this makes it easier for them bc they dont have to hunt for it in dumpsters. Anecdotally this works, as I never see cans around my neighborhood more than 24hrs, while other debris lingers.
It could be argued that a deposit on ALL trash-creating products, would be equivalent to a consumption tax; both eliminating the need to charge for municipal garbage service, and give income to otherwise unemployable ppl, reducing need for welfare services. Also this is not dependent on govt being able to run a cost-effective recycling program. The deposit could be merged with sales tax to prevent bureacratic growth while keeping revenue static (ie you pay 25 cents in tax, and can get back 10 cents when you return the detritus). If the rate is judged too high then consumers could do the legwork of returning it themselves.

Comment by vroman — July 31, 2009 @ 4:19 p.m.

No. The costs are born out by the grocery stores. The way the deposit recycling works is that you collect cans and bottles in a trash bag in your garage (or the hallway of your apartment :( if you don’t have a house) and then take your bag to the grocery store or big box store where you feed all the cans one at a time into machines that then spit out a receipt you take to a cash register which they then apply to your purchases or give to you as cash. They then send their receipts and wait for the state to pay them since when the cans/bottles are sold you send the money to the state since they will not necessarily be returned to your location and unless you are a grocery store or big box store you are unable to take returns. It’s a pain in the ass for stores and consumers and plenty of consumers don’t even bother with it and just wait for children or poor people to come along and take the cans/bottles. I liked it when I was a teenager living in Michigan and could make extra money from it since I lived in a giant apartment community walking distance from a 24 hr grocery store (although I also disliked the extra work it gave me at my job at Dollar Tree) but now it would just be lots of wasted gas going to the grocery store to return cans. Which destroys the environmental aspect of it anyway and ends up being me spending more money so that the state can spend more money in order to take recycling out of my hands. Realistically RIGHT NOW anyone throwing away aluminum cans is paying for it since they could be turning them in to recycling centers for profit. This is all aside from the fact that this is using the government to enforce behaviors you find desirable and in that sense is no different than sin taxes or helmet laws. Societal pressure toward normative behavior is fine. Government enforcement of it is not.

Comment by S/A — July 31, 2009 @ 10:25 p.m.

So I was reposting Facebook comments and it carried the read mores over… heh

Comment by S/A — July 31, 2009 @ 10:28 p.m.

I lived in Michigan for 14 years: Almost EVERYBODY brought back their containers. And for those who didn’t there was a thriving side business of people foraging for bottles. It really has worked to clean up Michigan.
And if you’re going to do it, it should be 10 cents, because 5 cents might not be enough of a cost to encourage returns.
I am sensitive to the argument that private sector recycling, or market forces, should be brought to bear, but the lefty side of me says there is a greater good that requires government intervention to carry out.

Comment by Jack Naudi — July 31, 2009 @ 11:03 p.m.

Yeah the issue is not that the bottles don’t get returned. The issue is that between the increased number of trips to the store, paper work from all the stores selling canned/bottled beverages and energy used by the machines to crush each can going through the revolver instead of crushing lots at once like commercial recycling centers I’d be surprised if there is any real environmental benefit left. And taking yet another avenue of stores doing governments work for them is not great.

Comment by S/A — August 1, 2009 @ 12:01 a.m.

Yes! A bottle/can deposit about triples the recycling rate and reduces litter. Even though aluminum does have the incentive over plastic of having a scrap value (therefore some people will collect their cans and take them to a recycling center), the recycling rate on cans isn’t really much higher than plastic bottles. People “do bother” to return for the 5 or 10 cent refund, infact in MI about 97% of deposit containers are returned for recycling. Deposits are an effective program that work very well and it makes more sense than local governments and taxpayers being stuck with the high cost of litter cleanup, waste disposal and curbside recycling. There is nothing complicated about taking empties back to the store when you’re returning to buy more soda or beer. As to the concern about retailers handling the containers, many states now use redemption centers which are next to or near the grocery stores. California for example the retailers and distributors are basically not involved at all and their deposit program is a great way to fund local recycling. Due to the bottle bill “Californians have recycled more than 10 million tons of beverage containers (nearly 80%.) No other recycling program or policy in CA has resulted in higher recycling levels, and no program of its kind in the country has been found to be more cost effective.”

Comment by Steve — August 1, 2009 @ 10:58 a.m.

I really don’t think there are many increased trips – it just becomes something you bring along with you to do when you go to the store for other reasons. I don’t know how exactly they work it for the stores involved, but I have to guess they receive some money back for the work they do. Sort of like how businesses that pay their withheld MO state sales and income taxes on time get to keep a small amount of that money as a payment for doing the collecting. If they don’t get some of the money, than any Missouri plan should put that in.

Comment by David Stokes — August 1, 2009 @ 5:34 p.m.

What about recycling for everything that’s not a beverage container? We tried the deposit law in Columbia, and while it works, there’s a better way. The blue bag system they use now is much easier. The best way to encourage recycling is to make it easy for citizens.

Comment by JW — August 3, 2009 @ 11:50 a.m.

St. Louis county has competing trash disposal services that people pay for. I would recommend any area with monopolized trash service switch.

You have to remember to bring the cans along, lug them along w/ your other stuff and in the case of people working later shifts find a place that is 24 hrs. You create extra work for people in the areas that have curbside recycling unless they want to lose money. It’s annoying. But that’s all besides the point.

It is not okay to use government to enforce your beliefs of what a person SHOULD do. If you take government beyond the scope of rights enforcement or service providing into the field of changing behavior it is inconsistent to take issue with others doing the same. In other words the proposed plan where people are forced to buy health insurance or pay a penalty is fine. Forcing people to save for retirement or pay a penalty is fine. Prohibiting cigarettes, alcohol, drug use, fast food, or whatever else anyone may take issue with is fine as long as the punishment is a fine.

Comment by S/A — August 3, 2009 @ 8:27 p.m.

Yes, start charging the 5 to 10 cents. As I will return mine so it cost me nothing, then spend my time collecting from the lazy people, like I did when I was young; collecting pop bottles! Even paid for Gas to cruise the main when in High School. Bring it on!

Comment by Yes, start charging the 5 to 10 cents — February 6, 2012 @ 12:37 p.m.

July 31, 2009