Introduction
California is in desperate need of reform regarding plastic use. Approximately 70% of products are packaged in plastic, with the figure even higher for beverages (Benyathiar et al., 2022). As one of the most populous and economically significant states in the United States, California can become a trendsetter in environmentally conscious policymaking.
Despite recycling and waste-reduction programs and regulations, the state has yet to address the growing concerns about landfill, water, and air pollution. This is especially risky, as the coastal nature of the area makes it prone to barriers to environmental implementation. The memo supports efforts to reduce the number of plastic bottles by altering the current deposit-refund system.
Policy Option: Reforming the deposit-refund strategy to encourage recycling and mindfulness when it comes to plastic use.
Current Policies
California has already adopted an initiative correlating with the proposed policy. Namely, Governor Newsom signed the bill that ensures the recycling of wine and distilled spirits bottles (State of California, 2024). Additionally, each bottle must contain 15% of post-consumer recycled material. Initiatives have also been approved regarding the deposit-refund strategy, but they have not yet been widely adopted among Californians. The bottle taxes and refunds are 5 cents for containers less than 24 ounces and 10 cents for containers 24 ounces or larger (State of California, 2024). It is proposed to increase the rates by 100% to encourage recycling.
Minimization of Plastic Waste
It is critical to highlight the extent of the problem to realize the need to adopt the proposed policy. Researchers estimate that more than 25% of marine garbage consists of beverage packaging materials (Zhou et al., 2020). To produce it, manufacturers have to use fossil fuels, which pollute the air.
In addition, a major concern is that it requires an extremely long time to degrade. For California to ensure that the ocean, soil, and air remain clean, it is critical to minimize the consumption and waste generated via improper recycling. For this very reason, it is recommended to employ measures that would encourage individuals to engage in eco-conscious initiatives through economic motivations.
Deposit-refund systems have already been successfully adopted in various settings, which is one of the reasons why they are recommended in the context of the selected state. The strategy implies that consumers purchase goods packaged in plastic bottles and pay a deposit that is added to the initial cost. The deposit can be returned when consumers return the emptied bottles to designated recycling facilities or retailers.
The initiative’s success has been demonstrated in countries that have adopted it, including Germany, Australia, and Sweden (Zhou et al., 2020). The strategy is proposed as it is an evidence-based measure to reduce landfill and water pollution, which are currently major concerns in California. The goal is to enhance current recycling practices by giving Californians a reason to engage properly, as it is one of the pillars of environmentalism alongside reusing and reducing (Islam et al., 2019). A long-term objective is to establish a more mindful demographic that is educated, informed, and conscious about waste minimization practices.
Advantages and Disadvantages
A primary advantage of the proposed policy is that recyclable materials will indeed be repurposed rather than sent to the landfill. Researchers support the idea that, despite opportunities to reuse plastic bottles multiple times with proper techniques, the lack of programs specializing in polyethylene terephthalate management hinders efforts (Jadayil & Aqil, 2023). An additional clear benefit is litter reduction, as individuals will be less likely to leave bottles in unsuitable places, thereby indirectly creating negative aesthetic and ethical contexts.
Consequently, the measure will positively impact the state’s economy. It is noted that repurposing bottles to create new ones reduces production costs by 30% (Jadayil & Aqil, 2023). As a result, environmental and financial incentives are associated with the strategy.
There are, however, disadvantages that need to be covered for transparency reasons. Regions that have already adopted the policy have stated that, despite recycling becoming more prominent, the measure does not contribute to the formation of a circular economy (Rhein & Sträter, 2021). Instead, reusable options or more sustainable materials, such as glass or aluminum, would be preferable to polyethylene terephthalate. An evident disadvantage is the potential barriers that lower-income communities face in covering the additional fees, acquiring transportation, or having the time and motivation to access the recycling centers.
Policy Recommendation
The recommended policy is to adopt a more substantial deposit-refund system to maximize plastic bottle recycling in California by increasing the California Redemption Value (CRV) by 100%. Currently, 5 or 10 cents are refunded when the bottles are returned (State of California, 2024). The objective is to maximize the rates to 10 and 20 cents. The current policy, which is being reenacted, has proven efficient, as Fresno County representatives report that 80% of containers are recycled as a result of the initiative (Fresno County, 2024).
Furthermore, the policy has been responsible for the repurposing of more than 300 billion bottles. Needless to say, by maximizing incentives, the rate will increase to more than 90%. The previously identified issues, namely, the pollution of the soil, oceans, and air as a result of the production of bottles, would be reduced if more individuals and businesses were encouraged through cost management. In addition, it may positively affect other areas of waste management, as cost initiatives provide individuals with opportunities to save resources (Abila & Kantola, 2019). Consequently, people will likely engage in recycling other materials besides plastic and benefit from additional programs designed to maintain a healthy environment.
It is also vital to discuss the political, economic, and administrative considerations regarding feasibility. Politically, beverage manufacturers can dismiss the policy due to potential profit losses, as each product would cost more than it currently does. However, as mentioned previously, producing bottles would be less expensive if old containers were recycled to make new ones (Jadayil & Aqil, 2023). Despite potential lobbying opportunities for corporations, public sentiment agreeing with the environmental cause would positively affect policymakers.
Similarly, even though the products would increase in price, the opportunity to receive tax refunds and the creation of new jobs in waste reduction are economically advantageous. Administratively, funding would be required to advance the infrastructure, but since the initiative has already been reenacted, existing equipment and facilities would simply require upgrades. A similar approach should be employed in stakeholder collaboration.
Conclusion
To preserve California’s ecosystem and prevent pollution from further damaging the state’s resources and creating problems for individuals living here, it is vital to substantiate the deposit-refund strategy by increasing the price incentive. It would maximize the number of bottles recycled and diminish current problems such as pollution and waste. In addition, it would encourage people to contribute to improving the setting in which they operate through financial incentives.
References
Abila, B., & Kantola, J. (2019). The perceived role of financial incentives in promoting waste recycling—empirical evidence from Finland. Recycling, 4(1), 4.
Benyathiar, P., Kumar, P., Carpenter, G., Brace, J., & Mishra, D. K. (2022). Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle-to-bottle recycling for the beverage industry: A Review. Polymers, 14(12).
Fresno County. (2024). California redemption value. County of Fresno.
Islam, M., Ferdous, M. F., Almazee, M. S., Dipto, M. S., Sultana, K. T., & Hasan, A. (2019). Recyclable plastic bottles deposit and refund system (RPBDRS). 2019 Joint 8th International Conference on Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV) and 2019 3rd International Conference on Imaging, Vision & Pattern Recognition (icIVPR).
Jadayil, W. A., & Aqil, E. (2023). Building a deposit–refund system (DRS) for closed-loop recycling of water bottles in the United Arab Emirates. Recycling, 8(5).
Rhein, S., & Sträter, K. F. (2021). Intended and unintended effects of statutory deposit return schemes for single-use plastic bottles: Lessons learned from the German experience. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 30(4), 250–256.
State of California. (2024). Beverage Container Recycling. CalRecycle Home Page.
Zhou, G., Gu, Y., Wu, Y., Gong, Y., Mu, X., Han, H., & Chang, T. (2020). A systematic review of the deposit-refund system for Beverage Packaging: Operating mode, key parameter and development trend. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251.