Despite the expansion of recycling systems and bottle deposit initiatives in the United States, the actual recycling rates remain shockingly low. According to a study conducted by MIT researchers, only about 24 percent of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles—commonly used for beverages—are recycled. These figures have stagnated over the past decade. However, the team’s findings present promising strategies to enhance recycling efforts.
The researchers suggest that implementing a nationwide bottle deposit scheme could drastically boost recycling rates to approximately 82 percent. This approach would mean nearly two-thirds of all PET bottles are repurposed into new bottles, with an added cost of just a penny per bottle when demand is high. However, they emphasize the need for policies that nurture a consistent demand for recycled materials.
The findings are published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, in a study led by MIT professor of materials science and engineering, Elsa Olivetti, along with graduate students Basuhi Ravi and Karan Bhuwalka, and research scientist Richard Roth.
The team examined PET bottle collection and recycling rates across various states and countries, comparing regions with and without deposit policies and curbside recycling programs. This comprehensive analysis is the first of its kind to explore the intricate dynamics between public policy and the realities of the packaging production and recycling sectors.
According to their research, areas with established bottle deposit programs show high levels of effectiveness, yet the overall collection of used bottles is insufficient to meet industry targets. Their analysis indicates that a standardized nationwide bottle deposit policy could meet the ambitious recycling standards set by recent legislative proposals and corporate sustainability commitments.
Recycling PET bottles is not only efficient but also yields high-quality products. New items created from entirely recycled materials can closely resemble those made from virgin materials, demonstrating that brands can successfully use 100 percent post-consumer waste without compromising safety. Nevertheless, the researchers found that the collection process is a critical bottleneck, preventing recycling facilities from satisfying their material needs. Olivetti remains optimistic, noting that with appropriate policies, significant improvements are achievable.
“Our findings show that a multifaceted approach, which considers both the demand and supply sides of the recycling equation, can lead to substantial progress,” Olivetti explains. “It is crucial to develop a holistic view that incorporates the behaviors of all stakeholders involved for successful outcomes. While optimism is warranted, we must remain cautious and consider the bigger picture.”
The study highlights the importance of addressing the needs of existing municipal waste recovery systems. Expanding bottle deposit programs is key to boosting recycling rates and ensuring a steady supply of raw materials for PET recycling companies. However, current facilities processing curbside recycling materials face potential income loss as PET bottles—valuable components of the recycling stream—are shifted to deposit initiatives, leaving them with less lucrative mixed plastics.
The researchers developed economic models based on collection rates from states with deposit programs, evaluating recycled-content mandates and other applicable policies, eventually extrapolating these findings to a national context. They concluded that a nationwide bottle deposit system, imposing a 10-cent charge per bottle, could align supply needs with packaging manufacturing, all at a minimal net cost of about 1 cent per bottle produced when demand is strong. Such a program would not necessarily have to be federal but could be effectively managed at the state level, according to Olivetti.
Other countries have implemented more successful deposit systems that achieve exceptionally high collection rates. Several European nations collect over 90 percent of PET bottles, in stark contrast to the U.S., where collection hovers below 29 percent, contributing to a mere 24 percent recycling rate after losses during the recycling process. Although 73 percent of Americans have access to curbside recycling, only 10 states currently boast bottle deposit initiatives.
Yet, there is a clear demand for recycled materials. “The market exists for these materials,” Olivetti asserts. Bottles gathered via mixed-waste collection can be recycled, but those retrieved through deposit programs are typically cleaner and require less processing, making them cheaper to process into new bottles or even textiles.
For policies to be successful, they must focus not only on increasing recycling rates but also on maintaining a balanced supply chain and accommodating various stakeholders. To mitigate the revenue loss that existing recycling facilities may experience due to an increased reliance on bottle deposits, potential subsidies funded by bottle producers could provide essential financial support. Additional regulations—including recycled content requirements and extended producer responsibility—may also be necessary to sustain market demand for collected materials.
As we move forward, it’s vital to concentrate on specific waste streams that are efficiently recyclable, with PET and various metals being prime examples. “Mixed plastic streams present far greater environmental challenges,” Olivetti notes. “Recycling systems should advocate for extended producer responsibility and consider materials optimized for effective recycling.”
Finally, it’s crucial to define “right metrics” for sustainably managing material streams, encompassing aspects such as energy use, circularity—like transforming old bottles into new ones—and waste reduction. Aligning these factors calls for enhanced policy coordination aimed at promoting an effective recycling ecosystem.
Photo credit & article inspired by: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
