140 likes | 236 Views
Bottle Bill in Oregon and Hawaii: Cost/Benefit Analysis. Team One Brett Baumgartner Lauren Butz Zack DeMar Katherine Hanson Phil Lewis Brian Luevano Penelope Scott Dan Sullivan. Proble m. The US consumes 1500 plastic w ater b ottles e very second
E N D
Bottle Bill in Oregon and Hawaii:Cost/Benefit Analysis Team One Brett Baumgartner Lauren Butz Zack DeMar Katherine Hanson Phil Lewis Brian Luevano Penelope Scott Dan Sullivan
Problem • The US consumes 1500 plastic water bottles every second • The plastics used degrade very slowly • Cause of the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” • Plastic can be remolded and formed into new bottles
Bottle Bill Background How It Works How It Started • The consumer pays a deposit when purchasing the bottle and gets it back when they recycle it • Empty bottles were littering the streets • Failed attempt in Virginia • First successful bill was passed in Oregon
Oregon: Bottle Bill • Established in 1971 known as the “Bottle Bill” • Created friction between large bottle producers • Reduced production costs • Competed with local bottlers
Oregon: Bottle Bill Benefits Costs • Energy conservation • A ton of plastic bottles saves approx. 3.8 barrels of oil • Recycled materials uses 2/3 less energy than raw materials • Reduction in costs • In 1971 Marion County spent $20,000 on litter removal • Estimated $100,000 • Inflation • 1971 5¢= 28¢ in 2001 • 18 pack=$5.04 rather than 90¢ • Breakage and contamination • “down cycling”
Oregon • Improvements Needed: • Lack of increases in redeemable deposits • Deposits have not taken inflation into effect • Decreasing incentive to return/recycle bottles • Less willing for individuals to participate possible decreases in the effects of the bill
Hawaii: Bottle Bill • Solid Waste Management; Deposit Beverage Container Law (Act 176) • Only state without curbside recycling • Goal: Increase recycling and reduce littering • Implemented on January, 1st 2005 • 5 cents redeemable deposit • Container fee is 1 cent per container • Redemption rate exceeds 70% in a year the fee is raised .5 cents (1.5 cents per container) • Consumer receives 3.5 to 4 cents for that container.
Hawaii: Costs and Benefits • Costs • Not efficient due to lack of oversight • Potential Fraud due to over-reliance on self-reporting from distributors and redemption centers • Benefits • +4.7 billion beverage containers recycled • Gives an incentive to recycle • Reduces litter • Hawaii reached a 79% recycling rate (2009)
Hawaii • Improvements Needed • Not enough state supervision • Loss of money • Operation issues • Lack of awareness
Cost Benefit Analysis Inflation rate = 2.5% Discount rate = 9.5% In 5 years, a total cost savings of $358,366.75
Cost-Benefit Analysis: AEM Model Overall environmental quality (benefit) defined: Reduction of litter caused by irresponsible bottle disposal Expressed on x-axis Scale of 1 to 10, 10 being highest environmental quality Cost to consumer Bottle Bill shifts marginal cost curve from MC to MC_New, effectively lowering the cost to consumer and raising environmental quality Example: Instead of bottle exchange, Hawaii decides to implement curb-side recycling because it’s cheaper and more efficient. Also, this would eliminate the problem of fraudulent reporting by businesses.
The Future of the Bottle Bill • 11 current bottle bills • Beverage production industry • Retail industry • Deposit law progress • Arizona’s bottle bills • Title: “beverage containers; recycling fund; redemption”
Conclusion • Bottle Bills are great ways to reduce waste • Proper incentives to increase recycling • Vulnerable to market inefficiencies • What can you do to encourage recycling laws and their efficacy?