The California Harvest

California’s deposit and return system creates a steady stream of plastic bottles to be recycled. That state’s Department of Conservation, headed by Darryl Young, has created an aggressive marketing campaign to keep the Golden State’s container recycling rate among the highest in the nation.

Following are segments of an interview Recycling Today conducted with Darryl Young earlier this year.

Recycling Today (RT): Does California's current redemption system need to be changed or modified in any way? Would you say it needs to be overhauled, or just tweaked?

Darryl Young (DY): There have been about 45 different changes since the law was established in 1987. The most significant is one we’re still adjusting to: The addition of about 3.5 billion containers, including those for juices, teas and water. That tends to be the biggest change. In order to ensure that this settles out, we don’t perceive any additional current changes. One thing we tweaked was a concern by can manufacturers that language [used on containers] was too wordy, so we’ve reduced that.

What is sure is that there are more containers being diverted from landfills than ever before. We’re trying “social marketing,” similar to stop smoking campaigns; to get people to recycle containers they didn’t know were recyclable, such as those for Gatorade or Frappuccino.

I inherited this program, and it works. I have the hardest working people in the state of California in this department.

RT: Which private sector segments, if any, are unhappy with the current system? Grocers, bottlers, scrap dealers?

DY: There isn’t anyone right now lobbying against it. Private sector segments are looking for tactical edges, but they’re not advocating eliminating the program. We’ve actually gotten compliments, because our staff is committed to making sure recycling can be done while maintaining good relationships with manufacturers.

RT: In this system, where do the containers go after they have been brought back to a redemption center (CRV)?

DY: If you sell more than $2 million in retail, you have to have a center in your store—or within a half-mile, or you have to have one yourself. [Individuals] can either go to parking lot recycling centers or reverse vending machines. They get a receipt or cash and can go into the store and get money back. Those who don’t, they can leave containers at curbside. Curbside operators get a portion of the CRV back. That money goes to communities but is earmarked for recycling education.

They have contracts with materials processors. Tomra may take them themselves. They contract with a firm to come in and take the containers.

In most states, you have to take containers to the store and they sort by manufacturer. That’s costly for the stores—it takes up their square footage. By having this parking lot system and not having the store as involved, we’ve reduced costs for stores. Retailers are the ones who pushed for these convenience zones.

RT: Does the current system seem to meet with acceptance by most California residents?

DY: People like the system by and large. They like recycling. The retailers say they [most shoppers] are not averse to spending a little more for recycling, since it’s considered a good cause. They’re paying five cents or 2.5 cents per container.

RT: Do residents tend to hold on to single-serve purchases and bring them back to retailers? Or are these among the six million containers “lost” from the loop?

DY: People are highly mobile. When we asked to describe the beverage container of the future, “on the go” was a key phrase. We’re trying to capture that. Part of that is building an infrastructure, and we’re developing plans to increase the number of bins. [We kicked] off an Earth Day campaign to put bins in state parks. People are recycling at home, but when they’re out and about, they need an infrastructure.

We need to make it iconic--sort of like the postal or Fed Ex box. We need to brand the recycling bin that we’re looking to create

RT: Are container makers or beverage companies being spurred to boost the plastic recycling industry because of the deposits on plastic containers?

We’re not seeing that, [and] it’s not part of our job function.

RT: Has the system achieved a goal of maximizing recycling rates and discouraging landfilling of containers?

DY: I would say that the mission has changed. Originally, the mission for the bottle bill was the notion of reducing trash on the roadsides. As we moved into the ‘90s, and the notion of landfill space being limited was perceived, the main mission has been to ensure that the rate of recycling has been as high as possible, and also to keep trash out of the landfills.

Our marketing campaign is quite unusual. We’ve taken a new approach. In Calif., with all the government agencies, they have their own advertising campaigns. We decided to have local governments spend their money on buying ads instead of creating their own. We’re also helping them plan. A slogan we’ve used is: “It’s good for the bottle, it’s good for the can.” The average citizen knows its good for the environment. But to capture their hearts and minds, we found people have an affinity for the beverage container itself. The subtext is that the bottle or can has been good to the consumer [by quenching his or her thirst], now be good to it.

Ideally, the goal should be above 80% for a recycling rate. To get there, we need to stop the drop in recycling. But the percentage is down mainly because people don’t’ know about these new categories of containers that have been added. We need to get those percentages up to the level of traditional cans and bottles.