“`html
Believe it or not, American enterprises are spending money on importing waste from China, Mexico, and various global locations. Businesses engage in this practice to collect enough bottles and cans to satisfy the American need for recycled materials like bottles and cans. However, researchers from Texas A&M University propose an alternative method aimed at decreasing waste in Texas: a “deposit refund system” (DRS) designed to enhance recycling.
The DRS model has successfully diminished waste across northern Europe and is active in 10 states, including Iowa and Michigan. The principle is simple: impose a fee on a specific kind of container, and then refund that fee when the container is returned. For instance, someone in Iowa pays an additional five cents while purchasing a bottled soda, which they can reclaim at participating stores or redemption centers. Presently, the Texas Legislature is reviewing such a proposal.
The overarching notion is that Texas, as one of the largest states, can significantly influence the reduction of the nation’s dependence on imported waste.
“We are bringing in waste that is utterly unnecessary,” stated Raymond Robertson, the head of the Bush School’s Mosbacher Institute for Trade, Economics, and Public Policy and co-author of a DRS policy brief. He explained that Texas could mitigate litter, generate employment, and even attract more customers to stores by establishing a system akin to Iowa’s. The state could begin gradually, focusing initially on plastic soda and water bottles, and later expand as the public adapts to this new method, based on the policy brief.
“Many specifics still need to be ironed out,” remarked Kaleb Abreha, an assistant research scientist at the Mosbacher Institute and a co-author of the brief. “There are both environmental and economic justifications for this.”
Why Texas?
In 2021, 23.7 billion beverage containers were sold in Texas, but only 5.2 billion were recycled, as reported by the Container Recycling Institute. This leaves 18.5 billion cans, bottles, and other items either buried in landfills or scattered throughout the state’s scenery. Less than 20% of plastic water bottles are recycled.
Texas falls significantly short of its official target of achieving a 75% recycling rate by 2035.
“Conventional (recycling) methods, especially single-stream recycling, have shown inefficiency due to contamination and quality concerns,” according to the Mosbacher Institute brief. This dilemma—made worse by confusion surrounding recycling practices—extends beyond merely aesthetic concerns regarding the environment. The state lost out on $372.6 million in scrap metal revenues in 2021, as noted in the brief, which adds: “Organizations like the Texas Farm Bureau and the U.S. Cotton Trust Protocol are striving to improve sustainability measures, including expanding recycling initiatives.”
Conversely, DRS schemes have demonstrated their effectiveness. In states with a deposit system, individuals recycle 46% of plastic water bottles, compared to only 10% in states without one. Similar discrepancies exist for glass containers and aluminum cans.
“DRS actively involves consumers in the recycling process” because it presents them with one of the most compelling incentives to take part: financial reward—according to the brief.
This participation fosters job creation. Despite Texas not approaching its long-term recycling aspirations in 2019, the recycling sector supported nearly 23,000 jobs statewide. Recycling contributed nearly $5 billion to the state’s economy. An increase in recycling will generate additional jobs and revenue—an extensive rise, like the one created by DRS systems, would result in considerably more employment and revenue, according to the policy brief.
Beyond Litter
Two primary obstacles exist for the implementation of a DRS scheme, according to the Mosbacher Institute’s research.
The first is the availability and low cost of new plastics. Companies frequently determine that sourcing virgin plastics is more economical than utilizing recycled alternatives. This situation ultimately results in more bottles, cans, and containers being produced, which can take many human lifetimes to decompose.
Yet, even enterprises wishing to minimize their contribution to global waste production encounters challenges. Americans fail to recycle enough cans and bottles to fulfill the national requirement—forcing companies demanding eco-friendly products into the peculiar situation of needing to import waste to support environmental initiatives.
“They state on the bottle, ‘this bottle is made with recycled content,’ but they often do not disclose where that recycled material originated from,” Robertson remarked.
Effective recycling initiatives could aid in resolving both of these issues, according to the brief. However, new programs can only flourish by addressing a second significant hurdle: confusion among consumers, businesses, and the entities responsible for transporting and recycling materials. Recycling systems can be intricate, and “this complexity can lead to coordination challenges and delay the implementation of solutions,” as noted in the policy brief.
Thus, it is suggested that Texas begin modestly with plastic bottles and remain receptive to innovative ideas, such as reverse vending machines (where people can insert bottles in exchange for cash). Even before the DRS programs are fully operational, Texas might establish a platform for the public to return bottles for minor compensation, thereby instilling the perception of a monetary incentive for recycling. Perhaps Texas could also persuade the federal government to impose tariffs on waste imports, thus making recycling a more economically viable alternative, both locally and nationally.
Win Over Retailers
A crucial demographic will be retailers.
“The most effective way to boost returns is for retailers to accept returns. This has been proven repeatedly. People already frequent those locations,” Abreha said. “Thus, we do not intend to overlook retailers’ concerns. They must become collaborators.”
Abreha added that store proprietors and managers shouldn’t fear one outcome that is sometimes raised as a concern…
“`to DRS initiatives. The minor increase in the price of soft drinks, bottled beverages, beer, and similar items typically does not deter consumers. According to the policy brief, sales remain stable, referencing multiple studies on the subject.
Nonetheless, requesting retailers to gather and keep bottles means adding more responsibilities to their workload. However, there is a benefit. Each time an individual returns bottles for recycling, they pass by aisles filled with products they might buy using the money earned from the recycled containers.
“If an individual receives a dollar” from a return, Abreha mentioned, “there’s a strong possibility they’ll spend that dollar at that establishment.”
______
Further details regarding DRS and the proposals from Bush School researchers can be found in a Mosbacher Institute policy brief. The researchers are recommending six actions for the successful rollout of a DRS program:
- Launch a public awareness initiative, collaborating with educational institutions and community groups to educate the public about the advantages of DRS operations. This step aims to help individuals recognize which types of cans, bottles, boxes, and other items are eligible for refunds.
- Develop the essential infrastructure. Facilitating easy drop-off for consumers is crucial. Consider utilizing both state resources and unclaimed refunds to create drop-off locations and the logistics required to transport the gathered materials to recycling facilities.
- Reduce the strain on retailers. In certain DRS frameworks, merchants are tasked with securing returned containers, dispensing refunds, and delivering the containers to recycling sites. Instead, focus on creating drop-off alternatives nearby or in other practical areas.
- Set the deposit amount high enough to motivate consumers to return the containers. Increased deposits result in improved return statistics.
- Introduce financial rewards for enterprises that utilize recycled plastics sourced domestically. This approach should incentivize businesses to cease the importation of waste.
- Mandate participation in DRS. Robust regulatory backing is essential to ensure transparency, adherence, and effectiveness.
The article The United States Is Importing Trash. Texas Could Help Change That first appeared on Texas A&M Today.