The Michigan Beverage Container Deposit Law: Sensible Environmentalism for the Average Citizen

I'm not an environmentalist, am not worried about global warming and certainly hug no trees outside of the ones that my daughter insists upon loving as friends of the Earth, but one environmental policy on the law books in Michigan makes perfect sense to me: the recycling of beverage cans and bottles.

The Michigan Beverage Container Act, the first law of its kind in any industrialized state, was adopted in 1976 and enacted in 1978. With a deposit of 10 cents per can or bottle the bill sought to curb the littering of the natural habitat as well as to reduce the amount of recyclable materials which ended up in landfills.

I can still remember finding a Miller beer bottle on a neighbor's lawn while doing my paper route in the late 1970s and seeing that 10 cent deposit band at the top of the label on the neck of the container and being excited at my "dime" find. Before that I always reveled at finding full beer bottles in not so well-hidden spots where teenagers ditched their supply before heading home to make curfew. I would carry them in my saddle bags and deliver the bounty to my mother who was only too happy to accept the found treasures. After the law was enacted I would pressure her to drink the beer as quickly as possible so that I could pocket the deposit. I'm certain that I ruined many party plans for the unsuspecting kids who thought they had secured their stash for the weekend. Nowadays I usually collect the containers and if at all possible leave them in a visible place where the local homeless people can easily spot and use them. A few cans a day will help them out much more than it will me.

In the 30 years since the law was implemented the return rate of recyclable containers is a staggering 96.9%. This is by far the highest return rate in the country (http://www.bottlebill.org/about/benefits/waste.htm). The high return rate is generally attributed to the fact that the 10c levy -- which is double the amount of any other participating states -- is prohibitive enough to secure the return of the container while not over-buderning the purchasing habits of consumers.

Of course the law isn't perfect. While some containers such as iced tea, certain energy drinks and various other containers (the law defines a beverage as such: "Beverage" means a soft drink, soda water, carbonated natural or mineral water, or other nonalcoholic carbonated drink; beer, ale, or other malt drink of whatever alcoholic content; or a mixed wine drink or a mixed spirit drink.) are presently excluded from the bill, the effect of those exclusions are not so far-reaching as in previous generations with the increase in curb-side recycling programs in many municipalities.

From my own personal experience though, I see many of the aforementioned vessels laying about in the parks and schoolyards which I frequent while walking my dog. I'm not sure why these exclusions haven't been amended but it would be wise to do so having seen the destruction of so many lakes, rivers, fields and neighborhoods which are still recovering from the previous eras of wasteful habits and careless disposals.

Another drawback of the program has been the illegal trafficking of out-of-state returnables into Michigan. It's a 10 million dollar per year (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27390552/) windfall for "smugglers" and an equal loss for environmental programs in the state. Fortunately, many manufacturers are working on technology to combat the problem by marking out of state containers with fool-proof labels that the recycling machines can trace and reject for return.

While the program has been a great success in Michigan and the other 9 states which currently have a law in place it has failed to catch on in most parts of the country. According to BottleBill.org the benefits of such a bill far outweigh the basic recycling programs which other states have implemented, mostly on a voluntary basis. The 10 states with container deposit acts have nearly 3 times the recovery rate (http://www.bottlebill.org/about/benefits/curbside.htm) of recyclable products than those without a law in place.

I'm vehemently opposed to any government which isn't very limited in scope but this is a law which protects both private and public property by both conserving the resources and sparing it the negligence of those with no stake in either.

(to read the actual bill visit this pdf link: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_LCC_bottbill_32030_7.pdf)