© 2026
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Summer fun and recycling

Commentary & Opinion
WAMC

Memorial Day weekend marks the unofficial start of summer.  Bar-B-Qs, picnics, vacationing, Americans will want to be outdoors. And at events large and small, in parks or backyards, Americans bring with them the foods and beverages that are easiest to transport. When it comes to beverages, coolers full of soft drinks, beer and wine are often the drinks of choice.  For most, that means single use beverage containers consumed, in plastics or glass bottles, or aluminum cans.  And, of course, this collection of containers requires disposal.

But where?

When it comes to single use beverage containers, some are returned to the manufacturer (for example Pepsi) to be recycled or otherwise disposed of. And many others end up dumped in landfills or incinerators at your expense.

When one examines which beverage containers are returned or which are dumped, there is really no rhyme or reason. For example, the next time you’re looking at soft drink beverages, “Mountain Dew” is likely recycled, while “Brisk Iced Tea” is not. Both are in identical plastic bottles and both are made by PepsiCo, but their disposal is handled differently.

But why? The answer is that it’s a quirk of New York law.

New York’s “Bottle Bill” is the law that requires consumers to place a nickel deposit for the purchase of a covered beverage container. That law covers carbonated beverages and water containers but does not cover anything else. So, soda and beer are in, while iced teas and sports drinks are out. Which means that the beverage companies that produce beer, soda and water are responsible for disposal of returned used containers, while taxpayers are on the hook for the disposal of everything else.

Identical containers being treated differently. It might be humorous, but it contributes to New York’s solid waste crisis. Right now, the number one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for disposal; number three is burning; and the last is to be recycled. To make matters worse, the state’s residential recycling rate has been dropping over the past decade. So you pay for more landfilling and burning.

The state’s capacity to tackle this problem is dwindling. According to the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), “New York’s 25 municipal solid waste landfills have a combined landfill capacity of between 16 and 25 years.” If the state’s landfills are filled to capacity in a decade or so, what will happen? 

Two and a half years ago the DEC issued its “New York State Solid Waste Management Plan” to tackle that emerging problem. Among its recommendations, the DEC argued that the state should reduce or recycle its solid wastes at the rate of 85 percent and do so by embracing a “circular economy” approach, one that relies on ensuring that the producer of the waste is responsible for its fate – not the taxpayers. The plan urged action to, among other things, expand the state’s bottle deposit law and reduce packaging wastes

So far, however, nothing has been done. The expected budget agreement is unlikely to tackle this problem and so the garbage will keep piling up - and used beverage containers will either get recycled or dumped in a landfill.

Some of us may remember the old advertising campaign to “take the Pepsi challenge,” a taste-taking competition.  This summer New Yorkers should take the “Bottle Bill” challenge: Take a look at your picnic drinks and see if you can identify which are recycled through the Bottle Bill and which are dumped at taxpayers’ expense. What you’ll see are the exact same containers being treated differently.

Ask your state elected officials why.

Blair Horner is senior policy advisor with the New York Public Interest Research Group. Horner is also trustee of WAMC.

The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.

Related Content
  • Now well over a month late, it appears that Governor Hochul and state lawmakers are on a path to finish off the budget, which was due on April 1st. Since the final budget agreement will be the latest since 2010, the tardiness will squeeze the time available to tackle non-budget topics.
  • The fight over New York’s quarter-plus-trillion dollar budget continues with little evidence of it ending anytime soon. In what has now become an annual ritual, Governor Hochul has frozen budget negotiations in order to pressure lawmakers to agree to what are essentially non-budget policy initiatives.
  • New York’s state budget is now two weeks late. There are no public indications that the secret negotiations are heading toward a quick resolution. Reading the tea leaves, the late budget is largely the result of Governor Hochul’s insistence that lawmakers approve non-budget measures, such as weakening the climate law, as part of an overall budget agreement.