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, IrelandContents
2 Executive Summary2 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
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 2010 alone, Ireland sent 7,341 tonnes of aluminium packaging, 113,769 tonnes of plastic packaging, and 31,552 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. In 2010, we were the fifth biggest producer of municipal waste in kilograms per capita.1
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.
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.2
Deposit and Refund Systems throughout the World
Deposit Refund Return Rate Aluminium Glass non-refillable
PET Plastic Aluminium Glass
PET Plastic Denmark3 <1L: 1 DKK ≥1L: 3 DKK <1L: 1 DKK ≥1L: 3 DKK <1L: 1 DKK ≥1L: 3 DKK 84% 93% 93%
Estonia4 .50 EKK 1 EKK
≤.5L: .5 EKK
>.5L: 1 EKK 59% 91% 96% European
Average5 N/A N/A N/A 62.4%* 67%** 48.4%
Finland6 0.15 € .33L: .10 € .35L<1L: ,20€ <,35L: ,10€ >1L: ,40€
92% 98% 89%
Germany7 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 80% 82.20% 68.4%
Ireland8 N/A N/A N/A 48% 76% 22.5%***
Norway9 ≤.5L: .10 NOK
>.5L: 2.50 NOK N/A
≤.5L: .10 NOK
>.5L: 2.50 NOK 91% N/A 81% Sweden10 .50 SEK .33L: .60SEK
.50L: .90 SEK ≤1L: 1 SEK >1L: 2 SEK 91% 45% 40% Switzerland 11 .035 CHF .09<.33L: .02CHF .34<.6L: .04 CHF >.6L: .06 CHF .5L: .04 CHF 1.5L: .05 CHF 90% 90% 81%
State Beverage Container Deposit-Refund Systems
State Since Containers Covered Deposit, Refund Amounts % Returned Redemption Sites Unclaimed Deposits Handling Fees California 1987 Beer, soft drinks, wine coolers, mineral water <24 oz, 2.5¢ >24 oz, 5¢ Aluminum 88% Glass 76% PET 50% Overall 84% State-certified centers Program administration grants Per container processing fee Connecticut 1980 Beer, malt, soft drinks, mineral water Minimum 5¢ Cans 88% Bottles 94% Plastic 70-90% Retail stores and redmption centers Kept by distributer or bottler Beer 1.5¢ Soft drinks 2¢ Delaware 1982 Non-aluminum beer, malt, soft drinks, mineral water <2qt 5¢ Insufficient data Retail stores and redemption centers Kept by distributer or bottler 20% of deposit Iowa 1979 Beer, soft drinks, wine, liquor 5¢ Aluminum 95% Glass 85% Plastic 70-90% Retail stores or redemption centers Kept by distributer or bottler 1¢ Maine 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¢ Mass. 1983 Beer, soft drinks, carbonated water 5¢ Overall 85% Retail stores and redemption centers State 2.25¢ Michigan 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 New York 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¢ Oregon 1972 Beer, malt, soft drinks, carbonated mineral water Standard refillables: 3¢. Others: 5¢
Overall 85% Retail stores
Kept by distributer or bottler None Vermont 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¢
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. 13
In the United States in 2006, the 11 states with deposit and refund systems recycled almost half of the US’s total recycling.14
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.15 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 2010, Ireland only has recovery rates of 39.1% for aluminium packaging (there is a 45% recovery rate for aluminium cans), 39.4% for plastic packaging and 77.8% for glass packaging. 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. 16
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 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. 17
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. 18
Waste in Ireland
Ireland currently sends more municipal waste to the landfill than any other nation in the EU 15. In 2010 alone we disposed of 843,342 tonnes of municipal waste. At our current rate of disposal, 16 of the 29 landfills that accept municipal waste will be full within the next three years. 19We are throwing away 800 million plastic bottles every year and therefore spending €38 million annually disposing of plastic bottles alone. 20 Ireland’s per capita rate of municipal waste generated is the 5th largest in the EU.21
22
While the overall quantity of household waste has dropped, in 2010, Ireland still disposes nearly 850,000 tonnes of household waste and has a recovery rate of 41%. 23
24
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.25 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 number of bring banks has reduced by 67 in 2010 since the high of 1,989 in 2008, people still brought 82,908 tonnes to bring banks (19% less than the high in 2008) and 158,303 tonnes to civic amenity sites (21% less than the high in 2008). 26 This 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 back their recyclables.
Number and tonnages collected at bring banks and civic amenity sites, 2006 2010
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number of Bring Banks Collected at bring banks (t) 1,919 96,727 1,960 95,569 1,989 102,300 1,962 91,800 1,922 82,908 Number of civic amenity sites Collected at civic amenity sites(t) 86 191,399 90 203,282 96 200,455 107 177,158 107 158,303 27 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. 28
They have reason to be concerned. 93.2% of Ireland is slightly, moderately, significantly, or grossly littered. 29In 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. 30
A deposit and refund system would have a significant impact on preventing litter. A study done by An Taisce found that plastic bottles were present at 36% of the sites recorded, cans at 26% and glass bottles at 18%. 31 Packaging is the third largest component of litter and accounts for 12.02% of all litter. 32Yet 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 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.
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.
33
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 visible and do not degrade”.34
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.
Job Creation
As of June, 2012, Ireland had a 14.9% unemployment rate. 36A 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. 37These jobs are gained in areas such as retail, distribution and recycling.
STATE / PROVINCE JOB GAINS JOB LOSSES NET JOB 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.
Michigan 4,888 240 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.
New York
4,452-5092 135
4,317-5,079
Container manufacturers reported the loss of 135 jobs with the decline for metal cans in the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government report.
Iowa 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.
British
Columbia N/A N/A 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.
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. 39
Bottle Bill Resource Guide
Deposit and refund systems are 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. 40
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.41 In states that already had a deposit and refund system, a majority of those surveyed supported expanding the bill.42 Support transcends gender, geographic and political affiliation, with conservatives and liberals showing almost equal support. 43 Not one refund/deposit law has ever been repealed.
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.44
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. 45
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. 46
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. 47
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. 48
While 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.
Summary of environmental cost benefits
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. 50The Australian study also showed that the higher the deposit, the higher the return rate. 51
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%. 52 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.53 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. 54
Combined system of deposit and refund and kerbside
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. 55
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. 56
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.
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.container-recycling.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
Europe.EnviroCentre.ie. 3 Feb. 2011. Web.
<http://www.envirocentre.ie/News.aspx?ID=79D21E24-862B-4685-A66A- 2D7059FB72E2&PID=a257bece-c1e7-464a-9cd0-fde10d3a18c3&NID=0c92c080-669a-4bca-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/Unemployment- Rate.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>.
"New Poll Shows Strong Support for Bottle Bill Update." MASSPIRG. 20 Jan. 2011. Web. <http://www.masspirg.org/news-releases/healthy-communities/healthy- communities/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.recycling-
revolution.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 Eurostat (2010), Municipal waste generated, kilograms per capita 2
The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment
3 Container Deposit Legislation; Årsrapport 2008 4 ??
5
European Aluminium Association; FEVE The European Container Glass Federation
6 Recyclable Plastic Bottles in Finland
7 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
8 European Aluminium Association; Glass Collection for Recycling; National Waste Report 2009, Ireland 9
Norway Waste Report
10 Beverage Container Legislation in Sweden; FIND OTHER SOURCE 11 Damien, Rey ; Actualité Tri Et Recyclage Suisse 2009
12 The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment 13
The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment
14 Recycling in Bottle Bill States and Non-bottle Bill States 15 Gitlitz, Jenny
17 European Aluminium Association; Glass Collection for Recycling; Aluminium Use in Europe – Country Profiles
; Energy Impacts of Replacing Beverage Containers
18 Recycling Facts
19 National Waste Report 2009, Ireland 20 Packaging Questions Unwrapped 21
Municipal waste generated, kilograms per capita, Eurostat (2010)
22 Municipal waste generated, kilograms per capita, Eurostat (2010) 23 National Waste Report 2010, Ireland
24
National Waste Report 2010, Ireland
25 Waste Characterisation Surveys 2008 Final Report 26 National Waste Report 2010, Ireland
27 National Waste Report 2010, Ireland, (Source: Local authority survey, WEEE compliance schemes)
28 Irish Business Against Litter
29 The National Litter Pollution Monitoring System Results 2009 30 Draft Replacement Litter Management Plan 2008-2010 31
Litter Composition Statistics 2006
32 The National Litter Pollution Monitoring System Results 2009 33 Gitlitz, Jenny
34 Visitor Attitudes on the Environment 35
Litter Reduction in Kiribati
36 Ireland Unemployment Rate 37 Bottle Bills Create Jobs 38 Bottle Bills Create Jobs 39
Survey of New York Registered Voters: Attitudes Toward New York’s Bottle Bill and Proposed Reform
40 Return to Vendor - Public Support Return of the Bottle Deposit." 41 Bottle Bill Polls Nationwide
42 Bottle Bill Polls Nationwide 43
New Poll Shows Strong Support for Bottle Bill Update
44 Independent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales 45 Hogg, Dr. Dominic, p.6-7
46 The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment 47 Hogg, Dr. Dominic 48 Hogg, Dr. Dominic 49 Hogg, Dr. Dominic 50 Hogg, Dr. Dominic 51
Independent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales, Volume II
52 Litter Composition Statistics 2006 53 National Waste Report 2009, Ireland 54 Green Party
55
Hogg, Dr. Dominic
