I’m sympathetic to the goal of trying to recycle more bottles but here’s my problem: Like more than 10% of the population of the state, I live in Seattle. I have a giant blue recycle bin that’s included for free with garbage service. The cheapest, laziest thing I can do with a plastic bottle is throw it in my recycling bin for efficient, high-volume pickup and recycling. The proposed deposit system adds a lot of administrative hassle, inconvenience, and waste (in the form of recycling return bags). Or I do what’s easiest and the most environmentally friendly but accept an extra expense. Would our resources not be better spent encouraging or subsidizing recycling programs in communities with difficult, expensive, or non-existent recycling programs? We don’t even have to hit every tiny town in the middle of nowhere to make a big difference. There has to be a good amount of low-hanging fruit out there where we could get a lot more recycling done, without making recycling worse in the places where it already has high participation.
East Queen Anner here.
You nailed it. Recycling is already flawed as hell and doesn’t do what we think it even does. I feel like this proposal is being introduced to fix some sort of gap in funding the existing program but is being sold to the public as a way to get back a hidden fee, knowing full well most people won’t take advantage of it, due to the hassle.