Mahalo for supporting Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Enjoy this free story!
There’s no doubting that the state’s recycling and container-redemption program has stalled and needs a jumpstart. The rate at which aluminum cans and eligible glass and plastic bottles are redeemed has fallen.
But there is some doubt about whether Senate Bill 3099, which seeks to double the deposit on containers in the “HI-5” program to 10 cents, will reverse that trend without further action.
The measure — which last week cleared another hurdle toward passage, emerging from the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection — proposes various strategies for advancing the program, some of which have merit and could proceed now.
The stopper is the increase in the deposit, based on the argument that the nickel-per-container redemption rate will not incentivize increased participation in the redemption program.
That likely is, in fact, a contributing factor, but it’s not the only reason why redemption rates are now down to 67 percent. The increase would not happen immediately, but only after the return rate falls below 80 percent for two fiscal years.
Still, there are likely other impediments to be cleared before the deposit increase would have its optimal effect.
The measure states the goal of raising that rate to 85 percent by 2023. In addition to raising the per-container deposit, the measure proposes to:
>> Require the state Department of Health, which manages the program, to set benchmarks to reach that goal, five years from now.
>> Establish a program to issue grants to develop Hawaii-based alternatives for reusing and recycling plastics.
>> Mandate an annual report from DOH on redemption rates, progress and plans for the program.
The benchmarks would be useful for charting a course to a point at which very few recyclable containers hit the landfills. And because the market for raw recyclables in China has cratered, diminishing the option of shipping Hawaii materials there for remanufacture, it would be smart to encourage the development of made-in-Hawaii strategies.
However, DOH officials testified that the state attorney general has advised them against the grants program. Any state-funded exploration program would need to go through conventional procurement channels, according to the AG’s office, rather than issuing grants to the prospective manufacturers.
Furthermore, it appears that more guidance would help shape improvements to the Deposit Beverage Container Program (DBCP).
“The department is presently engaged with a variety of studies that will provide additional information to improve overall DBCP planning,” officials said in written testimony.
That suggests the time may not be ripe for any comprehensive legislative efforts.
Advocates for the bill have pointed to other states that have increased the deposit to the dime level. But Oregon only recently boosted its deposit, so it’s hard to project its effect on redemption rates there. And Michigan has had its 10-cent deposit system on the books since 1976, so has had more time to work out the kinks.
There are other differences worth noting. For one, Michigan requires retailers to take back beverage containers, whereas Hawaii does not. Among the reasons for the falling participation may be the inconvenience of finding a redemption center.
And that experience has been rocky recently. For example, two years ago Reynolds Recycling closed down centers in a dispute with the state over what it earned.
On Oahu there is still curbside recycling program as a fallback; however, those worried about isle landfill space should demand a closer study of the issues.
Plainly, the state must look behind the falling participation and learn why some just take a pass on recycling. It’s not just about the money, and it’s unlikely the problem will be solved by simply turning HI-5 into HI-10.
76