My Two Cents on Michigan’s Ten Cents
By Nicki Chance
While visiting home for winter break, my mother asked me to help her collect the bottles and cans from our holiday party. As we returned the bottles to the local supermarket’s machine, she recalled her childhood memories of the beginning of the bottle deposit.
In the early seventies, before the bottle deposit, the streets of Detroit were covered with discarded cans. This problem extended beyond the city. Across the United States, the littering of bottles was a significant issue. In response, lawmakers decided to incentivize recycling. On November 2, 1976, the bottle bill was voted into law, adding a deposit on bottles and cans. By 1980, the litter disappeared.
As a lifelong Michigander, the bottle return system is second nature. I know by heart which containers are accepted and always keep a designated bin in my home that fills up with cans to return to Kroger. Throughout my childhood, I remember schools and local scout troops holding bottle drive fundraisers to raise money for projects or support various charities. But beyond being an easy way for children to contribute to a cause, the bottle return system has many societal benefits.
The most obvious is its positive environmental impact. What was once littered or sent to landfills becomes new bottles or cans in a continuous cycle that conserves resources. Making bottles from recycled material uses less energy and reduces the impact of plastics on green spaces. This system fosters an environmentally conscious mindset within shoppers. The law requires all retailers to accept any bottles they sell for a deposit, making the process easy. You return them where you bought them and use the money towards your next shopping trip or pocket the cash. For this reason, many people intentionally collect bottles and cans from the streets.
There are also economic benefits. The bottle return system created thousands of jobs in the recycling and manufacturing industries. Businesses in the system require skilled workers to collect, sort, and process recyclable materials. The system also benefits taxpayers because it reduces the amount of government spending on environmental cleanup.
Recently, there has been discussion about expanding the system to include a wider variety of containers, and I agree. Currently, ten states have some variation of the bottle return system. Although the laws may vary, the positive impact remains the same. The bottle return system has proven to be imperative if we want to protect the environment and create a more sustainable society.
Is it Time to Reevaluate Michigan’s Can Return Law?
By Leo V. Kaplan
About once a month, I stand bitterly at my local Meijer’s can return, sighing as it rejects cans and bottles alike which I purchased from that exact store. I walk away with under a dollar’s worth of store credit, tossing most of the bottles I brought in into the conveniently located trash cans. I spend my measly pittance on half an energy drink, wondering whether I’ll get my ten cents back for this one.
I’ve been mystified by Michigan’s can return law ever since I moved here. It’s a law so poorly executed that I am baffled by most Michiganders’ blind acceptance of it. I can only rationalize that most people are so used to it that they never notice its flaws.
Most obviously, the system feels designed to steal extra money from consumers. Can and bottle returns only accept products purchased at that store, and they frequently refuse to accept even those products. I can’t recall a time when more than half my bottles were accepted. I don’t buy many canned drinks, but I know soda and beer aficionados who consume at least a six-pack a day of their respective vice. At ten cents a bottle, that adds up fast.
The system also disincentivizes shopping at small businesses. Every can or bottle purchased in the state carries a ten-cent fee, but that fee can only be refunded if the product is purchased somewhere with a return. Who would purchase a 12-pack at a local liquor store if it means paying an extra $1.20? And that’s only those with the option—those with no car are forced to accept the fee unless they happen to live near a Meijer. And since most stores with a return incentivize customers to use their refund as store credit, even the act of returning the cans pushes customers away from small businesses.
The law even fails to encourage recycling. The system is so clunky that I’d rather just recycle my cans and bottles myself and deal with the lost fees—but my apartment complex doesn’t offer recycling. I’d happily pay to recycle my waste, but I’m unable to. Instead I pay ten cents per can for the privilege of throwing them out after they’re rejected by the return.
I can’t see how this law benefits Michiganders in any way. It is effectively a tax on canned and bottled drinks which can be circumvented only through substantial effort and luck. It is also not the only possible solution. For instance, some municipalities in Pennsylvania mandate access to recycling for everyone, but charge per bag of trash in “Pay As You Throw” programs. This incentivizes recycling while also ensuring its accessibility. Michigan’s inferior law works only for people with cars, who exclusively shop at big-box retailers and have recycling at home for the cans and bottles which aren’t accepted—which they still have to pay a fee for.
It’s time to come up with something better.
Leave a Reply