More Incentives, More Recycling

1. More Incentives, More Recycling Monika Chaudhry Kristin Rohrbeck Hannah Laughlin GCI1:006

2. Introduction • In the United States awareness of recycling has become higher then ever, yet recycling rates have declined. Partly due to this fact pollution has reached an all time high. • Some state governments have decided to step in; they’re offering incentives to those that recycle. • If the federal government offered incentives will recycling increase, and pollution therefore decrease? • We hypothesis, yes, it will!

3. Methods Figure 1.1: Zero Waste America. "Waste and Recycling: Data, Maps, and Graphs." 2006. <http://zerowasteamerica.org/Statistics.htm> (12 October 2006)

4. Methods Figure 1.2: Container Recycling Institute. “States with Deposit Laws.” 2006. <http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa.htm> (16 October 2006)

5. Methods Figure 1.3: Container Recycling Institute. “States with Deposit Laws.” 2006. <http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa.htm> (16 October 2006)

7. Results and Discussion Figure 1.5: Container Recycling Institute. “States with Deposit Laws.” 2006. <http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa.htm> (16 October 2006)

8. Implications

9. Implications

10. Solutions • To solve the problem of the amount of un-recycled recyclables we propose that the federal government create a national deposit on aluminum cans and glass and plastic bottles • Consumers would be returned their deposit of $.10 to $.15 per container recycled. • We have seen proof of deposit law success in the community that of which we all belong. • Students separating non-returnable and returnable recyclables. • Those who do not separate donate their deposit to the University or to low income citizens. • We can assume that our entire country would react similarly to the way individual states have.

11. Conclusion • Recycling is a profitable measure. • Recycling rates would increase if consumers had something to gain from recycling. • We can entice them with incentives offered through the government on the Federal government. • Once these incentives are more greatly in effect, recycling will increase, and waste and pollution will decrease as recyclable products will be transformed into post-recycled goods, ready to be used once again.

12. Take Home Message More incentives = More recycling = Preservation of resources & less pollution in the future!

13. For more information… Visit our website: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section6group2

14. Bibliography Ackerman, F. and K. Gallagher. 2002. Mixed Signals: Market Incentives, Recycling, and the Price Spike of 1995. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 35: 275-295 Beck, R.W. et al. "Understanding Beverage Container Recycling: A Value Chain Assessment." 2002. <http://www.container-recycling.org/BEARRpt.html> (16 October 2006) Container Recycling Institute. “States with Deposit Laws.” 2006. <http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa.htm> (16 October 2006) Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Recommendations for Improving and Expanding Recycling in Michigan. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1-9. Hartman, R. “Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia: Recycling." 2006. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556346/Recycling.html > (12 October 2006) Howell, Garry S. 1995. A ten year review of plastics recycling. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29: 143-164. Loughlin, Daniel H. and Barlaz, Morton A. 2006. Policies for Strengthening Markets for Recyclables: A Worldwide Perspective. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 36: 287-326 Viegi, G., Maio, S., Pistelli, F., Baldacci, S., Carrozzi, L. 2006. Epidemiology of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease: Health effects of Air pollution. Respirology, 11: 387-415. Zero Waste America. "Waste and Recycling: Data, Maps, and Graphs."2006. <http://zerowasteamerica.org/Statistics.htm> (12 October 2006)