Trash The Bottle Bill Facts

It's a Tax!

Consumers would pay a tax on every beverage container they buy. 5 cents forced deposit per container PLUS 3 cents handling tax per container. That's an 8 cent addition to every single container, or $1.92 to the cost of every case of soft drinks, water and beer sold in Tennessee. (Furthermore, the state would start collecting the tax two years before the deposit law even takes effect!)
Another tax bite would come from fraud - when containers bought in one of our 8 border states are returned here for a refund. Fraud is a significant problem in other deposit states. In Tennessee, the fraud would probably wipe out the projected revenue the sponsors are counting on from unclaimed deposits.
Cost to consumers will likely be even higher - as retailers take on the added cost of creating infrastructure to handle, sort and store returned containers. The cost burden placed on business will be transferred to consumers.

No state in the Southeast has forced container deposits. $1.92 deposit tax combined with Tennessee's already high sales tax and beer tax (third highest in the nation) will have citizens running to other states to make their purchases.

Bottle bills were created in the 1970s and only 11 states have forced deposit programs. This old idea for recycling ignores the growth of voluntary and municipal recycling programs.
No mainland state has passed a deposit bill since the early 1980s. Only Hawaii has passed a program since then. Forced deposit legislation has failed in Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky in recent years.

They do little to help the environment. The laws target less than 4% of all trash generated and an average of 8.5% of litter, leaving the rest of the problem untouched.
They are notoriously bureaucratic and expensive. Recycling through a deposit program costs at least three times more than curbside recycling with the higher costs passed on to consumers. And deposits are the most expensive way to clean up litter.
They take money away from community recycling programs. Carbonated beverage containers alone account for up to 70% of the revenue earned in curbside recycling - programs that are more efficient and more convenient for consumers.
This bill would take money from Tennessee's existing litter control program. A deposit law would end the beverage industry's $5 million annual funding of comprehensive litter prevention and control programs - programs that work today.

They address the whole problem, not just a few percent of it. Whether it's litter prevention and cleanup or recycling, it makes sense to focus on the big picture. Investing time and money in a deposit program with such a narrow focus is bad public policy.
Consumers prefer curbside recycling - it's more convenient and simpler to use. Curbside recycling and, in rural areas, dropoff programs, give us a single, easy way to recycle all of our paper, cardboard, and containers. Putting deposits on certain containers means that a duplicate recycling system gets established, making recycling more costly, more time-consuming, and more of a hassle.
Curbside is cost effective - $150/ton to recycle at curbside vs. >$500/ton for deposits. Deposits mean duplicate recycling infrastructure, more costly handling, and new bureaucracy. Deposits are simply much less efficient.ocus on the big picture. Investing time and money in a deposit program with such a narrow focus is bad public policy.
Tennessee's litter programs work. Beverage industry funding supports state and local programs in every county, ranging from education efforts to cleanup and Adopt a Highway programs. States with litter programs like Tennessee's that focus on all litter, not just the 8.5% that is beverage containers, have less litter on average than deposit states.