It’s rare that a fund growing richer qualifies as a bad sign, but such is the case with the Hawaii Deposit Beverage Container Program. This is the pot of cash in which the state Department of Health saves deposits from containers in the HI-5 recycling scheme that are not being claimed by
Hawaii’s consumers.
The $105 million now in that fund means that fewer people are fulfilling the program’s purpose by recycling and keeping throwaways out of the trash stream.
And that gives the HI-5 program a failing grade. The excess of recyclable plastic, glass and aluminum container could end up in facilities like Oahu’s HPOWER garbage-to-energy plant — or, worse, in the landfill. On Oahu, at least, that facility is already running short of space.
That’s why it’s essential lawmakers nail down a plan for making HI-5 much more efficient and convenient for Hawaii residents. An attempt to do so stalled last spring when House Bill 1928 died in the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.
Discussion was resuscitated in recent weeks when the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection called on Health Department officials to brief members on the problems.
On the top of the list is the shortage of space to accommodate full-scale recycling centers, as a number of them have closed. The only one open to Windward Oahu communities, for example, is in Kaneohe, mauka of the Windward Mall.
Resolving some of these problems was one of the goals of
HB 1928. Another proposed change in the bill was to collect the 5-cent deposit on the containers from the producers of the beverages rather than the consumers.
The idea was to put the onus for managing costs and efficiency on a “producer responsibility organization” (PRO) rather than having it divided among distributors, retailers, redemption centers and the state. That seems to be a rational approach, assigning oversight primarily to a dedicated management organization.
The one advantage of the fat bank account for the Hawaii
Deposit Beverage Container fund — again, now at $105 million — is that there is money to make some investments that will be needed to smooth the path to a successful program.
A similar bill should be introduced at the start of the next legislative session to discuss some potential solutions. For one, the state should consider buying some of the recycling vending machines that could be placed at retail locations. The fund also could underwrite some startup costs for a PRO that would manage the program.
Lawmakers also should review methods deployed in other states where the rates of recycling have been higher. Last year’s rate in Hawaii was 52% of HI-5 materials coming back to be recycled. That was following a gradual decline, year over year, from the high point of 2009, when the state achieved a high point of 79%.
This plainly is the result of recycling being far too inconvenient. In short, residents give up on hauling containers to some distant recycling center and instead leave their HI-5 materials in the green bin bound for the county collections or in the trash.
Not all the various strategies would be ideal here. For example, the state with the most successful program is Connecticut, with a redemption rate ranging between 92% and 97%. Among the factors driving that state’s success is the increase in the deposit itself, from 5 cents to 10 cents, effective Jan. 1, 2024. That ensured a stronger financial incentive for consumers to recycle.
Whether or not this would work in Hawaii is unclear. Adding a dime to each unit cost of beverages may not sit well with voters, given the currently inflated prices for groceries and other necessities.
Connecticut also expanded coverage of the deposit program to products not yet included — something worth considering here.
However, perhaps the most promising amendment modeled by Connecticut is the addition of a requirement for major grocery and chain stores to install two reverse vending machines to simplify redemption of the returned containers.
This regulation has drawn criticism from retailers here, who have complained of the lack of space for the machines and the incapacity to handle the program. It is, however, worth discussion. Perhaps the machines could be placed in conveniently located, select retail spaces to moderate the impact on companies.
But beyond the mechanism of collecting and redeeming the recyclables, finding ways to reuse plastic, glass and metals — ideally, locally — is also part of the challenge.
Most of these materials are still being packed and shipped off-island. There had been some hope for the use of crushed glass as a component in “glassphalt” for paving, for example. Unfortunately, this produces paving compounds that are less adherent when applied to roads.
Residents have learned how to keep items out of the trash. But keeping most of them out of the landfill is the only means of closing the circle of recycling, as those who love these islands must do.
