I'm curious to know if this is possible.

Could you be more specific?  What exactly are you trying to figure out?

Since Ohio does not a bottle deposit program, I'm wondering if it would be possible for Cincinnati to establish such a thing within city limits.  I'm waiting for a reply back from a council member in another charter city.  It seems that he proposal three different "green bills" in 2008--I'm not sure what the outcome of them were.  One was to create a "bottle bill" and another was to place a ban on plastic grocery bags within the city.  Of course we've seen the latter happen in places in San Francisco.  Then again, bottle deposit programs are almost always run at the state level.

When I was still active with Mallory's Kitchen Cabinet, the head of environmental issues for the city (his name and title escape me) was asked a question about something like this.  His response was a bit surprising.  Supposedly, the way a program like this would most likely be implemented would actually be less energy efficient than just throwing items away.  The environmental cost of collection (gas, vehicle costs, etc...) would exceed the benefit.  Curbside recycling suffers less from this due to the economies of scale.  I'm obviously not recalling all the detailed explanation from a two minute response from a meeting months ago, but that's the gist of it.

 

I'm not sure if you've seen "The Green Cincinnati Plan", so I've linked it below.  It is a plan from about a year ago that outlined recommendations for all sorts of green initiatives based off of environmental impact and return on investment.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cmgr/downloads/cmgr_pdf18280.pdf

I'm not sure how a plan like this would work.  In Michigan the bottle deposit works because technology allows for bar code scanners that reject bottles purchased from out of state.  I don't think that it would be possible to differentiate between bottles purchased inside from those purchased outside of city limits.  Therefore, it'd be quite easy for someone to collect all their cans or bottles and just drive them into the city to get the deposit.

 

Without a statewide deposit law, i think the best bet would be to encourage recycling of bottles and cans.

Seinfeld Kramer and Newman asamble the bottle

Supposedly, the way a program like this would most likely be implemented would actually be less energy efficient than just throwing items away. The environmental cost of collection (gas, vehicle costs, etc...) would exceed the benefit.

 

That's a good point. This is one of recycling's dirty little secrets - it's not always environmentally friendly in the first place!

 

Another example is paper recycling. Paper is basically a renewable resource (go visit a pine tree farm in the Southeastern US. Saving those trees is like saving the wheat stalks). Yet the paper recycling process concentrates a lot of nasty chemicals into the ecosystem. Consequently, some people argue that it's more environmentally friendly to NOT recycle paper.

 

If one is going to promote recycling, I'd stick with things like plastic, batteries, and "environmentally friendly" lightbulbs which are actually quite toxic. I don't think it's frankly worth the time to concentrate on natural products like paper (trees) and glass (heated sand).

I'm very skeptical of the people who say that it's more environmentally-friendly to throw things away than to recycle.  Even if they are correct about it taking more energy to recycle than to produce new paper or glass (which I don't necessarily believe is true), they are ignoring the fact that the "old" paper and glass will take up landfill space forever.  In a modern landfill, paper will not biodegrade.

 

I don't see how a can/bottle deposit would work on just a city level.  It's way too easy for people to buy outside of the city limits and then return them within city limits.

 

I'd stick with things like plastic, batteries, and "environmentally friendly" lightbulbs which are actually quite toxic.

 

Yes, CFL bulbs do contain mercury, but you must consider that coal-burning power plants also release mercury into the environment.  Using an incandescent bulb actually releases more mercury into the environment because it uses more energy.

Each CFL contains 5 mg Hg;

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/ask_treehugger_14.php

 

and power plants deposit 50 tons of Hg in the air annually

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/index.htm

 

or 45,360 Kg /year, or equivalent to the Hg in 9,072,000 CFL's

 

However, Hg is a potent neurotoxin and I would be more concerned about it in my house than 100 miles away at the coal fired plant

 

Equivalent to 10,160,000,000

I'm very skeptical of the people who say that it's more environmentally-friendly to throw things away than to recycle.  Even if they are correct about it taking more energy to recycle than to produce new paper or glass (which I don't necessarily believe is true), they are ignoring the fact that the "old" paper and glass will take up landfill space forever.  In a modern landfill, paper will not biodegrade.

 

I don't see how a can/bottle deposit would work on just a city level.  It's way too easy for people to buy outside of the city limits and then return them within city limits.

 

I'd stick with things like plastic, batteries, and "environmentally friendly" lightbulbs which are actually quite toxic.

 

Yes, CFL bulbs do contain mercury, but you must consider that coal-burning power plants also release mercury into the environment.  Using an incandescent bulb actually releases more mercury into the environment because it uses more energy.

 

Generally, without question....It takes more energy to keep extracting raw materials to covert them into new items than to reduce/re-use/recycle, depending on the product. We don't recycle at all...we have a place full of holes from mining...and that in itself presents a whole new ball game of environmental damage, so you cannot account for all the variables. Still, Anyone can come up with data that suggests it is cheaper to toss away, but funny how I find that logic only pervasive in the US amongst those in denial about the state of the environment here ....and I guess the data outcome depends upon who's payroll those producing it, are on.

 

I think Ohio really does need to get a bottle bill going....  Maybe this would help get some of the plastic litter off our roadways, and nout of our water resources. Roughly, ODOT spent over 4 million last year cleaning up crap that mostly came from idiots who don't know what a trash can/recycle can is for...and don't have enough brains to wait til they get to one. I wonder where we could have spent 4 million, instead of cleaning up after the lack of common sense. Just look around, its everywhere and very taxing on the environment. Check out a special that 60 Minutes Australia did on all this last year. It was shocking and downright disgraceful to see where this stuff is ending up.

 

Did we not learn something when the Indian cried in the commercial over 40 years ago?

Yeah, we learned he really wasn't a native american!  What about the noise though?  It is just so irritating!