One thing that I have noticed during my recent trip back to Michigan is the bottle-deposit law. When the idea of requiring customers to pay extra money for their beer or pop was put before the voters in 1976, I thought it was a good idea. (Then again, I also would have voted for Jimmy Carter, had I been old enough.) In my defense, I lived near the end of a mile-long dirt road, and saw plenty of empties littering the road. I thought that a container law would reduce the litter. (It did.)
But as years went by, I started to wonder if it was a good idea after all. Right now, I’m still not sure what I think.
When I went to return some bottles and cans, I went to a machine that sucked in my bottles and cans, though only one at a time. In case you’re interested, these are called “reverse vending machines.” Many are made by Tomra, a company with headquarters in Norway.
Several family members from within and beyond Michigan had joined together in one house for a week, so I had a lot of bottles and cans to return.
I worked non-stop, feeding bottle after bottle and can after can into the machine. I wasn’t rushing myself (the machine accepts only one item at a time), but I didn’t linger, either. Using a stopwatch program on my smart phone, I timed myself. The result: 4.17 seconds per item.
So the bottle law, while arguably has benefits, has costs as well. In particular, the time required of consumers to cart empties back to a store, and then (depending on the store) feeding them into a machine. It’s a small thing, but when I first arrived at the store, I had to spend some time hunting down a shopping cart. Multiply that by millions of people, and you’ve got something to consider.
I was glad to get the bottles and cans out of the garage, but it did leave a mess with the merchant. I saw several trash bins devoted to collecting the cardboard containers that once held 6-pack and 12-pack bottles and cans. Of course, I added our containers–and the Bud Lime bottle the machine would not accept–to the trash containers.
It’s a bit simpler in Minnesota, where I live now. I put my empty bottles and cans into a container in the garage. When trash day comes, I walk it out to the curb and place it next to the regular trash container.
I don’t have a separate container for bottles and cans because I think there is any virtue to it. I do it because the law requires my trash hauler to charge me a fixed amount per month, and give me a recycling in exchange. Into that, I put bottles, cans, and various paper.
I don’t appreciate government telling me what sort of services I must purchase, including my refuse service. But the mandate at least has the virtue that what I put in the recycle bin I don’t have to put into the trash container. Thus, I rent a smaller trash container than I otherwise would. The state does not inspect my trash to look for bottles and cans, but it certainly makes sure I have a financial incentive for putting them in the recycle bin.
I do appreciate the fact that mandatory recycling fees, whether they are in the form I face, or in the Michigan bottle bill, reduce litter. But as to their overall environmental benefits, I’m skeptical. Do we really face a shortage of the raw material used in glass–sand? How about increased vehicle emissions from extra vehicle trips to collect curbside trash, or take bottles and cans from your local merchant to … wherever they go?
Maybe the net environmental impact of mandatory recycling of bottles and cans is positive. I don’t know. But even then, it would have to be considered against the human costs (time, mostly) of mandatory recycling.