Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment Ltd.,
9 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2.
Phone: 01-6425741
Twitter: @voice_ireland
e-mail: info@voiceireland.org
Web: www.voiceireland.org
Patrons: Darina Allen, Pauline Bewick, Don Conroy, Dick Warner,
Christy Moore, John Feehan, Brendan Kennelly, Sr. Mary Minehan.
Container Deposit Legislation in Ireland
A proposed deposit and refund scheme
Prepared by VOICE Ireland
Stacy Weisfeld
July 2012
9 Upper Mount St
Dublin 2, Ireland
Contents
2
Executive Summary
2
What is a beverage container deposit and refund system?
4
Deposit and Refund Systems throughout the World
6
Recovery Rates
8
Waste in Ireland
9
Litter in Ireland
12
Job Creation
13
Public Support
14
Costs
16
A Proposed System for Ireland
17
Conclusion
Chair: Dr. Ruth McGrath – Directors: Gabrielle Brabazon, Gary Clare, Brendan Bartley; Coordinator: Mindy Byrns O’Brisn
Company limited by guarantee. Registered in Ireland no. 275127. Registered office as above. Charity No. CHY13196
Executive Summary
In the 1950s and 60s, single-use beverage containers began replacing refillable bottles at an
accelerated rate and the use of one-way beverage containers soared. In 2008 alone, Ireland sent
8,435 tonnes of aluminium packaging, 143,176 tonnes of plastic packaging, and 37,720 tonnes
of glass packaging to the landfill. We send more waste to the landfill than any other nation in the
EU 15 and our recycling rates are half the rates of our neighbours’ with deposit and refund
systems.
Waste is becoming a significant issue that Ireland cannot ignore. It is costly in many ways,
including, among others, the price of sending the waste to landfill, the damage litter does to
Ireland’s tourism industry, and the cost of producing and importing new materials. Furthermore,
if we continue to at our current disposal rate, 16 of the 29 available landfills will reach capacity
within the next three years.
Container deposit and refund schemes have proven to be extremely successful at addressing
these issues in other countries. These systems reduce waste, raise recovery rates, save money,
create jobs, and enjoy high public support. While a deposit and refund system will be expensive
to implement, its benefits greatly outweigh these costs. It is estimated that these systems have net
benefits of over €100 million.
According to the results of VOICE’s research and the findings of reports from the EU and all
over the world, VOICE recommends that Ireland implement a nation-wide beverage container
deposit and refund system.
What is Beverage Container Deposit and Refund System?
The primary goal of a beverage container deposit and refund system is to increase recycling rates
and reduce litter. A deposit and refund system requires a refundable deposit on various beverage
containers.
The operation of the system is, briefly, as follows:
1. When manufacturers sell beverages to a wholesaler or a retailer, they enter the amount
sold and the corresponding deposit amount into a central data system. The retailer pays
the producer the total deposit amount.
2. The consumer pays the deposit to the retailer when they buy a beverage. The retailer
gives them the deposit back when they return the empty container. Containers are often
collected by reverse vending machines.
3. The manufacturer then gives the deposit back to the retailer when they return the empty
container. They also give them an administration fee to cover any handling costs, usually
1-3 cents. Manufacturers usually pick up the empty containers from the retailer when
dropping off new products.
2
This is the most common system. There is, however, another option. In the alternative system,
retailers are not forced to accept used containers, collect deposits, or return refunds. Instead, the
manufacturer pays a fee to a state recycling fund. They receive this money back when they raise
the price of their beverage to the equivalent of this fee. Any business, organization, or individual
can collect and return empty containers and they are then paid through the recycling fund. As a
result, kerbside recycling programs can also participate in the deposit and refund system. Small
retailers are not required to collect containers and larger retailers are also exempt if containers
are collected within one-half mile. California has seen success with this model.1
3
Deposit and Refund Systems throughout the World
Deposit Refund
Return Rate
Aluminium
Glass
non-refillable
PET Plastic
Aluminium
Glass
PET
Plastic
Denmark2
<1L: 1 DKK
≥1L: 3 DKK
<1L: 1 DKK
≥1L: 3 DKK
<1L: 1 DKK
≥1L: 3 DKK
84%
93%
93%
Estonia3
.50 EKK
1 EKK
≤.5L: .5 EKK
>.5L: 1 EKK
59%
91%
96%
European
Average4
N/A
N/A
N/A
62.4%*
67%**
48.4%
Finland5
0.15 €
.33L: .10 €
<,35L: ,10€
.35L<1L: ,20€
>1L: ,40€
92%
98%
89%
Germany6
0.25 €
0.25 €
0.25 €
80%
82.20%
68.4%
Ireland7
N/A
N/A
N/A
48%
76%
22.5%***
Norway8
≤.5L: .10 NOK
>.5L: 2.50 NOK
N/A
≤.5L: .10 NOK
>.5L: 2.50 NOK
91%
N/A
81%
Sweden9
.50 SEK
.33L: .60SEK
.50L: .90 SEK
≤1L: 1 SEK
>1L: 2 SEK
91%
45%
40%
.035 CHF
.09<.33L: .02CHF
.34<.6L: .04 CHF
>.6L: .06 CHF
.5L: .04 CHF
1.5L: .05 CHF
90%
90%
81%
Switzerland
10
* EU 15 excluding Luxembourg **EU 15 ***Plastic packaging as a whole, not just bottles
4
State Beverage Container Deposit-Refund Systems
Deposit,
Refund
Amounts
Since
Containers
Covered
California
1987
Beer, soft
drinks, wine
coolers,
mineral water
<24 oz, 2.5¢
>24 oz, 5¢
Connecticut
1980
Beer, malt,
soft drinks,
mineral water
Minimum 5¢
1982
Nonaluminum
beer, malt, soft
drinks, mineral
water <2qt
State
Delaware
Iowa
Maine
Mass.
Michigan
New York
Oregon
Vermont
Redemption
Sites
Unclaimed
Deposits
Handling
Fees
State-certified
centers
Program
administration
grants
Per
container
processing
fee
Retail stores
and redmption
centers
Kept by
distributer or
bottler
Beer 1.5¢
Soft drinks
2¢
5¢
Insufficient
data
Retail stores
and
redemption
centers
Kept by
distributer or
bottler
20% of
deposit
1979
Beer, soft
drinks, wine,
liquor
5¢
Aluminum
95%
Glass 85%
Plastic 7090%
Retail stores
or redemption
centers
Kept by
distributer or
bottler
1¢
1978
Beer, soft
drinks, wine,
wine coolers,
liquor, juice,
water, tea
Beer, soft
drinks, juice:
5¢. Wine,
liquor: 15¢
Beer, soft
drinks, juice:
5¢
Wine, liquor:
15¢
Retail stores
and
redemption
centers
Kept by
distributer or
bottler
3¢
1983
Beer, soft
drinks,
carbonated
water
5¢
Overall 85%
Retail stores
and
redemption
centers
State
2.25¢
1978
Beer, soft
drinks, canned
cocktails,
carbonated and
mineral water
Refillables: 5¢
Nonrefillables:
10¢
Overall 93%
Retail stores
75%
environmental
programs, 25%
handling fee
25% of
unclaimed
deposits
1983
Beer, soft
drinks, wine
coolers,
carbonated
mineral water,
soda water
5¢
Wine cooler
63%
Soft drink
72%
Beer 81%
Retail stores
and
redemption
centers
Kept by
distributer or
bottler
1.5¢
1972
Beer, malt,
soft drinks,
carbonated
mineral water
Standard
refillables: 3¢.
Others: 5¢
Overall 85%
Retail stores
Kept by
distributer or
bottler
None
1973
Soft drinks,
beer, malt,
mineral water,
liquor
Soft drinks,
beer: 5¢.
Liquor: 15¢
Overall 85%
Certified
redemption
centers and
retail stores
Kept by
distributer or
bottler
3¢
% Returned
Aluminum
88% Glass
76%
PET 50%
Overall 84%
Cans 88%
Bottles 94%
Plastic 7090%
National Center for Environmental Economics
5
11
Recovery Rates
As seen in the above tables, countries and states with a deposit and refund system have very high
recovery rates. First of all, deposit and refund systems have proven to collect containers that are
of better quality and less contaminated that those obtained through a kerbside recycling system.
The largest producer of recycled PET plastic reported that 90% of its plastic comes from bottle
bill states because it is of much better value. 12
In the United States in 2006, the 11 states with deposit and refund systems recycled almost half
of the US’s total recycling.13 That means 20% of the states were responsible for 50% of the
recycling. In 1990, 80% of the glass recycled in the entire country came from deposit states.
Recycling rates in states with deposit and refund systems range from 63%-95% while rates in
non-deposit states average 30%. This implies that deposit and refund systems more than double
recycling rates.14 The graph below is another example of deposit states’ high return rates. Notice
the sharp increase in Hawaii’s recovery rate after a deposit and refund system was initiated.
As of 2006, Ireland only has recovery rates of 35% for aluminium packaging, 36.2% for plastic
packaging and 78.5% for glass packaging. In 2008 alone, Ireland sent 8,435 tonnes of aluminium
packaging, 143,176 tonnes of plastic packaging, and 37,720 tonnes of glass packaging to the
landfill. As stated before, if Ireland continues at its current rate of disposal, 16 of the 29 landfills
that accept municipal waste will be full within the next three years. 15
Recycling not only alleviates stress on the landfills, but it also has a positive impact on energy
usage. Creating an aluminium can from 100% recycled material requires 95% less energy than
one made from virgin resources. In fact, 206.9 MBtu are wasted for every ton of aluminium cans
6
thrown away, 52 MBtu for PET plastic bottles, and 2 MBtu for glass containers. Ireland wastes
quite a bit of energy through its low recycling rates. In 2006, Ireland disposed of over 215
million cans, wasting enough energy to equal 23 million barrels of oil and to meet the annual
energy needs of almost 7,000 households. We threw away almost 38,000 tons of glass bottles
with a wasted MBtu of over 100,000. This is the equivalent of 17,620 barrels of oil and the
energy consumption of almost 1100 households. 16
An increase in beverage bottle recovery rates to an average of 85% across aluminium, glass and
plastic would significantly alleviate the environmental and energy costs associated with the
significant levels of waste generated in Ireland every year.
Furthermore, concerning the environmental damage caused by waste, beverage containers take
years to decompose in landfills. Glass bottles can take up to 1 million years to decompose,
plastic beverage bottles take 450 years to decompose, and aluminium cans take 200 years to
decompose. On the other hand, an aluminium container can be recycled into a new can in as little
as 60 days. 17
7
Waste in Ireland
Ireland currently sends more municipal waste to the landfill than any other nation in the EU 15
and is at risk of not meeting many of the EU national waste management targets. In 2009 alone
we disposed of 1.7 million tonnes of municipal waste and that number is expected to increase
over the next decade. At our current rate of disposal, 16 of the 29 landfills that accept municipal
waste will be full within the next three years. 18We are throwing away 800 million plastic bottles
every year and therefore spending €38 million annually disposing of plastic bottles alone. 19
20
While the overall quantity of household waste has dropped, Ireland still disposes over 1 million
tonnes of household waste and has a recovery rate of only 29.5%. 21
In sectors that do not have access to kerbside, plastic, metal, and glass packaging is a high
percentage of landfilled waste. It accounts for approximately 25% of the landfilled waste from
food courts, around 20% for retailers and hair salons, 15% for schools and cinemas and 10% for
bars/restaurants, food retailers, hospitals, hotels, rail stations, and airlines.22 If people were given
monetary incentives to recycle, they would be more willing to go out of their way to recycle
these containers. While the amount of waste brought to bring banks and civic amenity sites has
declined since 2007, people still brought 91,800 tonnes to bring banks and 177,158 to civic
8
amenity sites. 23This is with no incentive other than a feeling of personal responsibility. Imagine
how many tonnes could be collected if the bring banks and civic amenity sites were more
numerous and conveniently placed and people were paid to bring their recyclables.
Litter in Ireland
Litter in Ireland is a consistent issue for many reasons. A 2009 study found that 48% percent of
the people surveyed claimed that litter was a more important issue in their neighbourhood than
any of the others problem areas on the list, meaning that more people are worried about litter
than crime and vandalism. 24
They have reason to be concerned. 93.2% of Ireland is slightly, moderately, significantly, or
grossly littered. 25In 2008, staff picked up 25,000 tonnes of litter in Dublin City alone. Dublin
had a budget of €37 million for cleaning up litter, spent €1 million various anti-litter initiatives
and has plans for future campaigns. The city is also increasing the number of officers to carry out
litter enforcement. Reducing litter could divert these funds to pay for education, health care and
other much-needed institutions. 26
A deposit and refund system would have a significant impact on preventing litter. A study done
by An Taisc found that plastic bottles were present at 36% of the sites recorded, cans at 26% and
glass bottles at 18%. 27 Packaging is the third largest component of litter and accounts for
12.02% of all litter. 28Yet this data is measured by pieces of litter, not volume or weight. This
means that the number for ‘cigarette related litter’ is so high because every single cigarette end is
9
counted and ‘food related litter’ is high as well because it includes each individual piece of gum.
While there may not be as many littered, each bottle, jar, and can take up much more space than
a cigarette or piece of gum. If the data had been measured by volume or weight, packaging
would make up a much larger percentage.
Tobin National Litter Pollution Monitoring System Results 2009
The impact of the introduction of a deposit and refund scheme on litter can be further evaluated
by considering the experiences of other systems. The below table summarises the levels of litter
reduction as observed in seven states in the U.S.
29
The negative visual impact of litter must also be considered. Failte Ireland research on the
attitudes of visitors to Ireland shows that 27% of tourists have witnessed littering or dumping in
the Irish countryside and 18% considering it a “real problem”. In the same report, beverage
containers are identified as the most problematic element of litter because they are “highly
10
visible and do not degrade”.30 The financial implications of litter in terms of its impact on
tourism is difficult to quantify but given the importance of Ireland’s tourism industry to the
economy and the focus of Irish tourism on the image of a clean, green Ireland, it should be
considered a priority to tackle the Irish litter problem.
The below pictures illustrate the dramatic change that a deposit and refund scheme can bring
about. The pictures are of Lagoonside Beach, Kiribati, an island in the Pacific Ocean. The
picture on the left is of the beach before they implemented their deposit and refund system. The
picture on the right was taken after the commencement of the bill.
31
November 2003
January 2006
Job Creation
As of January 2011, Ireland has a 13.4% unemployment rate. 32A deposit and refund system will
create jobs. In every state in US that implemented deposit and refund systems, hundreds of jobs
resulted. In Michigan and New York, close to 5,000 jobs were created. 33These jobs are gained in
areas such as retail, distribution and recycling.
STATE /
PROVINCE
NET
JOB
JOB
JOB
GAINS LOSSES GAINS
EXPLANATION
Oregon
N/A
165-227
348-410
Numbers from a report made for the Oregon State Legislative Fiscal
Office (did not include increases in retail employment).
Maine
N/A
N/A
626
Net job gains estimated by CALPIRG; includes new jobs in
recycling.
4,648
JOB GAINS: Employment increased primarily where bottlers used
the refillable bottle process (production line workers, sorters, and
bottle washers); Employment gains for brewers and MI Liquor
Control Commission data produces an estimate of 68 new hires;
Beer distributors' employment gains were due in part to increased
frequency of delivering to retailers and picking up empty containers.
JOB LOSSES: 73 jobs were lost when the National Can Co. closed
its plant in Livonia, MI and 167 jobs were lost when employment
was reduced at the Owens-Illinois glass plant in Charlotte.
Michigan
4,888
240
11
New York
Iowa
British
Columbia
4,4525092
135
4,3175,079
Container manufacturers reported the loss of 135 jobs with the
decline for metal cans in the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of
Government report.
N/A
N/A
1,200
DNR reported that 1,200 jobs, w/ annual income of $17,000 to
$21,000 attributed to the bottle bill.
745
Total employment generated by recycling beverage containers
(excluding employment in recycling operations, which is reported
separately) is estimated at almost 745 Full-time equivalents (FTE's).
This number is divided into 680 FTE's in collection depots, 26
FTE's in administration, 19 FTE's in transportation, and 20 FTE's in
processing.
N/A
N/A
34
12
Public Support
A survey in New York showed that 84% of those surveyed support the existing bottle-deposit
program. 78% agree that “the bottle-deposit program has made our state much cleaner,” and 81%
believe that “curbside recycling is not enough: we need the bottle-deposit program to control
litter”. 70% supported expanding the bill to include noncarbonated beverages. Furthermore,
almost half of those surveyed said that a candidate’s support of the deposit and refund system
was an important factor in their voting decision. 35
Bottle Bill Resource Guide
Deposit and refund systems are extremely not only popular in the countries and states where they
are in place, but in places where similar legislation has yet to be implemented. A study in the
United Kingdom found that 82% of those surveyed would be in favour of a deposit of at least 5p
and 80% said they would support a system with a deposit of at least 10p. 36
Studies done by the US General Accounting Office and Peter Hart Research Associates found
that 70% and 76% (respectively) of the American public supported a national deposit and refund
system.37 In states that already had a deposit and refund system, a majority of those surveyed
supported expanding the bill.38 Support transcends gender, geographic and political affiliation,
with conservatives and liberals showing almost equal support. 39
13
Costs
As with any project, there will be costs. The system is expensive to implement, but will benefit
Ireland long-term with savings.
A study in Australia estimated that a system there would have a net benefit of $70-100 million a
year, including environmental benefits of $100-150 million a year. They estimated that
recovering a container instead of disposing of it saves 6¢ per container, meaning that the benefits
of recovering and recycling these containers come to about $800 a tonne. Retailers and
producers would see some costs, but the local government will enjoy financial benefits and
therefore will be able to help subsidize these costs. A deposit and refund system would also
create between 1,000 and 1,500 full-time jobs. Please see the detailed cost analysis in their report
Independent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Whales.40
England’s CPRE (2010) also researched implementing a deposit and refund system in the UK
and found that deposit and refund system legislation would create savings of around £160
million for local authorities and thus reduce the burden of taxation. It would reduce the
equivalent worth of £69 million of greenhouse gas emissions and save £1.2 billion through litter
reduction. It will cost around £84 million to implement and £700 million per year to run but will
not introduce much cost to producers. Unclaimed deposits will fund around 70% of the system
costs. 41
It is estimated that, with 90% return rate, a minority of consumers would forfeit a total of £491
million (c. €571 million) of unclaimed deposits to the central system every year.
Handling costs should be around £576 million (c. €670 million) annually. There should be an
administration fee for retailers taken care of by the central system; the study recommended
approximately 4p with Reverse Vending Machines and 1p for those without. Collection and
counting costs will most likely be around £337 million (c. 391 million) per year. All of these
costs would be covered by the central system and an administrative fee from producers of around
7p. The study shows that while the producers do have an initial cost, after the system is
successfully implemented they actually begin to make a profit.
Distributors offset the handling costs through the unclaimed deposits and interest from the
deposits and handling fees before redemption. In systems where the distributors were forced to
share some of their profits from unclaimed despots with the government, the distributors
complained about the handing costs to the point where they were allowed to keep the entirety of
the unclaimed deposits. 42
Since a significant amount of bottles will be redirected from kerbside recycling, central system
costs can also be covered by the annual savings of £159 million (c. €185 million) that will occur.
Furthermore, there will be less vehicles required for kerbside pick-ups and this will save another
estimated £69 million (c. €80 million), even taking into consideration the costs of RVM
collection and handling. 43
The study also estimates that the benefit of reducing beverage container litter could be in the
region of £1.2 billion (c. €1.4 billion) annually. 44While there will be a cost associated with the
emissions required to run the deposit and refund system, net emissions costs will actually be
lower since kerbside recycling and trash trips will be reduced.
14
Summary of environmental cost benefits
45
15
A Proposed System for Ireland
VOICE proposes a beverage container deposit and refund system. Below are some
recommendations for the system.
Recommended system: Ireland should have a centralized system led by a private company or
the government.
Most other systems are owned by a private company, such as Sweden’s Returpack. CPRE
suggests a system owned by multiple stakeholders such as retailers and NGOs. If Ireland is to
follow common practice, all retailers should be required to accept qualifying containers, most
likely through reverse vending machines within or outside of the store.
While the system will only give a deposit back for containers in the system, retailers should
accept bottles from other areas such as the UK and Northern Ireland. There will be no refund but
it will prevent confusion and ensure that as man bottles are accepted as possible in order to
prevent litter.
Recommended return rate target: 85%
In countries with similar systems as the one proposed for Ireland, return rates are between 85%
and 90%. 85% is recommended as a starting point. Targets are needed to ensure that the system
fits Ireland’s requirements and needs.
Recommended refund: 15¢ ≤ 500ml and 30¢-40¢ ≥ 500ml
After comparing rates and results in many countries and states with deposit and refund systems,
the previously mentioned CPRES study about implementing a deposit and refund system in the
UK concluded that these refund amounts were ideal. They are high enough to provide a high
return rate yet low enough to keep beverage prices reasonably low. 46The Australian study also
showed that the higher the deposit, the higher the return rate. 47
Recommended materials: PET bottles, glass bottles, aluminium cans
As stated earlier in the report, in a litter study, plastic bottles were present at 36% of the sites
recorded, cans at 26% and glass bottles at 18%. 48 Furthermore, in 2008, Ireland sent 8,435
tonnes of aluminium packaging, 143,176 tonnes of plastic packaging, and 37,720 tonnes of glass
packaging to the landfill.49 When other deposit and refund systems were implemented, these
materials have seen return rates of up to 99%.
Something else to consider is that Ireland’s kerbside recycling has not accepted glass since July
2007 since the glass can break and contaminate other materials. As a result, people must walk to
bottle banks even though there is no monetary incentive to do so. This means that glass recovery
rates are not as high as they could be. With the average family disposing of 500 glass bottles and
jars each year, a deposit and refund system that includes glass would be very beneficial. 50
Combined system of deposit and refund and kerbside
16
A deposit and refund system has shown to recover more containers at a lower cost per container
than kerbside recycling programs. Even the most successful kerbside programs cannot come to
close to enjoying the same return rate as most deposit and refund systems. However, the deposit
and refund system should coexist with the kerbside recycling program. This has proven to be the
most successful approach since it not only saves money and improves beverage container
recycling, but also ensures that recyclable items other than beverage bottles will still be recycled.
51
In the United States in 1991, 43% of the population in deposit states had access to kerbside
recycling compared with only 22% of those in non-deposit states. 52
Conclusion
As can be concluded from the above information, a deposit and refund system would greatly
benefit Ireland. It will reduce waste and raise recovery rates all while saving money. Profit will
be made through abandoned deposits, environmental benefits and the reduced cost of waste
disposal, litter clean-up, and the kerbside recycling. This profit will greatly outweigh the costs of
implementing the deposit and refund system.
17
References
"Actualité Tri Et Recyclage Suisse 2009." Serbeco: Acteur Du Developpement
Durable.
<http://www.serbeco.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=199:actualite
-tri-et-recyclage&catid=36:user3>.
"Aluminium Use in Europe – Country Profiles." European Aluminium Association.
<http://www.eaa.net/upl/4/default/doc/Use%20by%20country%202008%20Fe
b%202010.pdf>.
Årsrapport 2008. Rep. Dansk Retursystem
“Beverage Container Legislation in Sweden." Bottle Bill Resource Guide. 14 Feb. 2008. Web.
<http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/world/sweden.htm>.
"Bottle Bills and Curbside Recycling: Are They Compatible?" National Council for
Science and the Environment (NCSE). 27 Jan. 1993.
"Bottle Bill Polls Nationwide." Bottle Bill Resource Guide. Web.
<http://www.bottlebill.org/about/benefits/polls/nationwide.htm>.
"Bottle Bills Create Jobs." Bottle Bill Resource Guide. Web.
<http://www.bottlebill.org/about/benefits/jobs.htm>.
"Container Deposit Legislation." WorldLingo. Web.
<http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Container_deposit_legislation>.
Damien, Rey. Evaluation De L'effet Incitatif Des Directives Federales En Matiere De
Gestion Des Dechets Par Rapport a L'Evolution Des Emballages. Rep. L'Ecole
D'Ingenieurs De Lullier, 2004.
"Draft Replacement Litter Management Plan 2008-2010." Dublin City Council.
"Energy Impacts of Replacing Beverage Containers." Container Recycling Institute.
<http://www.containerrecycling.org/facts/datashow.php?file=/issues/zbcwaste/data/energytable.htm&t
itle=Energy Impacts of Replacing Beverage Containers>.
European Aluminium Association. Aluminium Cans Recycling Close to 60%!
"European and domestic experiences in the collection of packaging waste – The
experience of the German deposit system.” Bernd‐ Ulrich Sieberge, 24 Feb.
2009.
European Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organizations. News from
Finland: Return Rate of Plastics Bottles Almost 90 Percent. 11 May 2010.
FEVE The European Container Glass Federation. Glass Recycling Increases Again in
18
Europe.EnviroCentre.ie. 3 Feb. 2011. Web.
<http://www.envirocentre.ie/News.aspx?ID=79D21E24-862B-4685-A66A2D7059FB72E2&PID=a257bece-c1e7-464a-9cd0-fde10d3a18c3&NID=0c92c080-669a4bca-8d37-320e50acb7eb&M=2>.
Gitlitz, Jenny, and Pat Franklin. "The 10¢ Incentive to Recycle." Container Recycling
Institute 4. July 2006.
"Glass Collection for Recycling.” The European Container Glass Federation. Web.
<http://www.feve.org/Statistics/rectycling-data-2009.html>.
Green Party. Limerick Green Calls on Council to Restore Glass Recycling Services. 5
Sept. 2007.
<http://www.greenparty.ie/news/latest_news/limerick_green_calls_on_council_
to_restore_glass_recycling_services>.
Hogg, Dr. Dominic, Dr. Debbie Fletcher, Timothy Elliott, and Maxine Von Eye. Have We Got
the Bottle? Implementing a Deposit Refund Scheme in the UK. Rep. Campaign to Protect
Rural England, 2010
"Independent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales." UTS: Institute for Sustainable Futures.
<http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/whatwedo/cdl_execsummary.html>.
"Ireland Unemployment Rate." TradingEconomics.com. Web. 08 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/UnemploymentRate.aspx?Symbol=IEP>.
Irish Business Against Litter. Litter “a Greater Concern than Crime or Pollution”,
Says EU Study 60 Towns under Spotlight as 2009 IBAL Litter League Expands.
20 Apr. 2009. <http://www.ibal.ie/press_releases/2009/PressRelease(2).pdf>.
"Litter Composition Statistics 2006." Irish Business Against Litter and An Taisc.
"Litter Reduction in Kiribati." Bottle Bill Resource Guide. Web.
<http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/world/details/kiribati-litterphotos.htm>.
"Municipal Waste Characterisation Surveys 2008 Final Report." Environmental
Protection Agency.
"Municipal Waste Landfilled." Eurostat.
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastemanageme
nt/landfill>.
The National Litter Pollution Monitoring System Results 2009. Rep. The Litter Monitoring
Body,
TOBIN Consulting Engineers
National Waste Report 2009. Rep. Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.
19
"New Poll Shows Strong Support for Bottle Bill Update." MASSPIRG. 20 Jan. 2011.
Web. <http://www.masspirg.org/news-releases/healthy-communities/healthycommunities/new-poll-shows-strong-support-for-bottle-bill-update>.
"Packaging Questions Unwrapped." Repak. Web.
Petcore. Petcore Publishes PET Collection Figures for 2009 - European PET Bottle
Collection Increases by More than 8%. 19 July 2010.
"Recyclable Plastic Bottles in Finland." Scandina Vian Brewers' Review 65.1 (2008).
"Recycling Facts." A Recycling Revolution. Web. <http://www.recyclingrevolution.com/recycling-facts.html>.
"Recycling in Bottle Bill States and Non-bottle Bill States." Container Recycling Institute.
<http://www.container-recycling.org/facts/all/data/recrates-depnon.htm>.
"Return to Vendor - Public Support Return of the Bottle Deposit." CPRE. 16 Dec.
2008. Web. <http://www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/558>.
"Survey of New York Registered Voters: Attitudes Toward New York’s Bottle Bill
and Proposed Reform." Public Policy Associates, Incorporate, Feb. 2004.
"Total Packaging Consumption, Recovery, Quota 1991 to 2008 (in Kilo Tonnes) in
the Federal Republic of Germany." Federal Ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2010.
"The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the
Environment." National Center for Environmental Economics, Jan. 2001.
Visitor Attitudes on the Environment. Rep. Vol. 1. National Tourism Development
Authority, 2008. Print.
Waste Report, Norway
1
The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment
Container Deposit Legislation; Årsrapport 2008
3
??
4
European Aluminium Association; FEVE The European Container Glass Federation
5
Recyclable Plastic Bottles in Finland
6
European and domestic experiences in the collection of packaging waste – The experience of the German deposit
system; Total Packaging Consumption, Recovery, Quota 1991 to 2008 (in Kilo Tonnes) in the Federal Republic of
Germany
7
European Aluminium Association; Glass Collection for Recycling; National Waste Report 2009, Ireland
8
Norway Waste Report
9
Beverage Container Legislation in Sweden; FIND OTHER SOURCE
10
Damien, Rey ; Actualité Tri Et Recyclage Suisse 2009
11
The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment
12
The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment
13
Recycling in Bottle Bill States and Non-bottle Bill States
14
Gitlitz, Jenny
15
National Waste Report 2009, Ireland
2
20
European Aluminium Association; Glass Collection for Recycling; Aluminium Use in Europe – Country Profiles
; Energy Impacts of Replacing Beverage Containers
17
Recycling Facts
18
National Waste Report 2009, Ireland
19
Packaging Questions Unwrapped
20
Municipal Waste Landfilled
21
National Waste Report 2009, Ireland
22
Waste Characterisation Surveys 2008 Final Report
23
National Waste Report 2009, Ireland
24
Irish Business Against Litter
25
The National Litter Pollution Monitoring System Results 2009
26
Draft Replacement Litter Management Plan 2008-2010
27
Litter Composition Statistics 2006
28
The National Litter Pollution Monitoring System Results 2009
29
Gitlitz, Jenny
30
Visitor Attitudes on the Environment
31
Litter Reduction in Kiribati
32
Ireland Unemployment Rate
33
Bottle Bills Create Jobs
34
Bottle Bills Create Jobs
35
Survey of New York Registered Voters: Attitudes Toward New York’s Bottle Bill and Proposed Reform
36
Return to Vendor - Public Support Return of the Bottle Deposit."
37
Bottle Bill Polls Nationwide
38
Bottle Bill Polls Nationwide
39
New Poll Shows Strong Support for Bottle Bill Update
40
Independent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales
41
Hogg, Dr. Dominic, p.6-7
42
The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment
43
Hogg, Dr. Dominic
44
Hogg, Dr. Dominic
45
Hogg, Dr. Dominic
46
Hogg, Dr. Dominic
47
Independent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales, Volume II
48
Litter Composition Statistics 2006
49
National Waste Report 2009, Ireland
50
Green Party
51
Hogg, Dr. Dominic
52
Bills and Curbside Recycling: Are They Compatible?
16
21