105
[OC] Bottles and cans with a deposit are recycled much more often than those without (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/dataisbeautiful@lemmy.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Reading this fairly. All ten deposit states are shown, not just the best ones. Their reported rates vary widely: Massachusetts is at 33%, Oregon (10¢) at 88%. Every state figure is above the 26% national non-deposit figure, but the measures and years differ, so this is not a like-for-like comparison (see below).

Different measures and years. Most state bars are calendar-year 2025 redemption rates for containers covered by each state’s deposit law; Hawaii’s is fiscal year 2024–25, and Iowa’s hatched bar is a 2022 recovery rate. The bottom two bars are 2021 U.S. recycling rates cited in CRI’s August 2026 release, and “not on deposit” includes non-deposit drinks sold inside deposit states. The bottom bars show the national gap between deposit and non-deposit containers; the state bars add context. None of this gives an Illinois-specific rate.

Connecticut rose from 65% to 92% in a year, following upgrades that included more return locations and a deposit increase from 5¢ to 10¢ in January 2024. CRI cautions that cross-border returns, claims of over-redemption by some distributors, and beverage sales that CRI estimates exceed what distributors report could all inflate the reported rate.

Iowa (hatched) is CRI’s 2022 “recovery rate,” which counts curbside and drop-off recycling as well as deposit redemptions, so it isn’t directly comparable to the redemption rates.

Sources

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

The core principle is to provide consumers with a rebate or refund of the surcharge added to the beverage product at the point of purchase when the packaging is returned to a designated collection point once emptied (Calabrese et al., 2021; Krzywda, 2022; Malindzakova et al., 2022; Walls, 2011; Zhou et al., 2020). Zhou et al. (2020) and Malindzakova et al. (2022) suggest that DRS can serve several functions within the waste management system. Specifically, they can: 1) increase the quality and quantity of collected materials and reduce littering; 2) contribute to high collection rates of valuable and recyclable materials; and 3) shift costs and responsibilities associated with the product's end-of-life phase from municipalities to producers, emphasizing the importance of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations.

There are 7 papers listed in the meta analysis i posted which should address litter.

I literally just searched for "litter" and this was the second hit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •