Several states have laws to encourage recycling. For example, 11 states currently encourage the recycling of beverage containers through deposit laws, or bottle bills—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. Most of these states impose 5-cent deposits on all beverage containers covered by their program; other states impose varying amounts depending on the type of container. Bottle bill states differ in the way that they treat unredeemed deposits. In four states, unredeemed deposits are retained by the state, and in some cases these funds are used to bolster recycling efforts. In six other states, unredeemed deposits are kept by beverage distributors and bottlers, while in Michigan, 75 percent of unredeemed deposits are allocated to the state, with the remaining 25 percent provided to beverage retailers to defray the costs of administering the program. Redemption systems for used beverage containers vary from state to state, but in general, most states allow consumers to return used beverage containers to either retailers or participating redemption centers. In addition to beverage container deposit laws, several states have laws related to the disposal of electronic waste, such as extended producer responsibility laws that require manufacturers to accept used electronic equipment for recycling. Currently, there are two main sources of information on recycling rates and trends in the United States—EPA and BioCycle magazine—both of which publish periodic reports on the subject. In 2004, the most recent year for which EPA and BioCycle both produced national recycling estimates, EPA estimated that 31 percent of municipal solid waste was recycled in the United States, while BioCycle’s estimate was 29 percent. EPA and BioCycle report different rates because of differences in estimation methodologies. EPA’s contractor, Franklin Associates, collects data from industry associations, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department of Commerce, and the glass industry to derive recycling rates for different types of materials. EPA estimates that in 2005, the most recent year estimates are available, 50 percent of paper and paperboard, 22 percent of aluminum, 22 percent of glass, and 6 percent of plastic were recycled in the United States. BioCycle estimates state and national recycling rates by surveying each state on the amount of municipal solid waste it generates, recycles, combusts, and sends to landfills; it does not provide estimates of recycling rates of individual materials. Although the EPA and BioCycle reports are considered the best available estimates of recycling rates, both have limitations. According to Franklin Associates officials, the industry association data they use may vary in quality and completeness. In addition, BioCycle’s study relies on the accuracy of the states’ municipal solid waste data, and a BioCycle representative noted that the states that choose to submit data have their own methods for collecting this information and that data quality varies. Recycling coordinators with whom we spoke identified several key practices being used to increase recycling in their cities. The three practices they cited most frequently were making recycling convenient and easy for their residents, offering financial incentives for recycling, and conducting public education and outreach. In addition to these three key practices, recycling coordinators and the recycling literature identified other ways to increase recycling, such as targeting a wide range of materials for recycling, extending recycling programs to the commercial sector, mandating that residents recycle, and targeting multiunit dwellings for recycling. Most of the local recycling coordinators with whom we spoke said that a convenient, easy-to-use recycling program was the most important recycling practice they use in their efforts to increase recycling. Several of the city recycling programs we examined provide both curbside collection (see fig. 1) and drop-off locations, weekly service on the same day as trash collection, and free curbside recycling bins. An EPA study found that offering curbside and drop-off collection contributed to high recycling rates because the ease of recycling made residents more likely to recycle. In addition, academic studies we reviewed identified curbside collection as a key to increasing the amount of material recycled because of its convenience. Further, several of the recycling coordinators with whom we spoke believe that providing a financial incentive to recycle is one of the most important features of their recycling programs. In cities such as Austin, Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle, residential garbage collection fees are based on the size of the garbage can used. Through recycling, residents can produce less waste, use smaller garbage cans, and thus lower their garbage collection bills. Cities such as Minneapolis and Philadelphia offer different types of financial incentives to recycle. Minneapolis residents who actively participate in the city’s recycling program through processing, sorting, separating, and bagging their recyclables receive a $7 credit in their monthly garbage bill. In Philadelphia, households selected to participate in a pilot program called “Recycle Bank” can receive up to $25 per month in coupons—based on the weight of their recyclable materials—that can be redeemed at major retailers. Academic studies we reviewed found that charging residents a waste disposal fee based on the size of their trash container could positively affect the amount of material being recycled. Recycling coordinators also commented that public education and outreach programs were important in their efforts to increase recycling. All of the recycling coordinators that we interviewed commented that they use mass media to educate the public about recycling. For example, according to its recycling coordinator, New York City provides information about its recycling program through its Web site, mailings, television commercials, and advertisements on public transportation. In addition to outreach activities through mass media, recycling coordinators in Atlanta, Austin, Jacksonville, and Philadelphia said that they offer recycling education programs in their school systems. San Francisco reaches out to its diverse population by distributing instructional recycling brochures written in three languages with pictures of recyclable materials. Academic and EPA studies we reviewed said that public education is correlated with higher recycling rates. For example, an EPA study found that communities with strong recycling programs all used education, publicity, and outreach to promote recycling. In addition, an academic study found that cities that held meetings with neighborhood or community groups on how, when, and where to recycle had higher levels of recycling participation than cities that did not. In addition to the three key practices, recycling coordinators and the recycling literature identified other practices that could increase recycling. One such practice is targeting a wide range of materials for recycling. Food scraps and yard trimmings made up almost a quarter of the municipal solid waste generated in the United States in 2005, according to an EPA study. Another EPA study found that collecting and composting yard trimmings were key to reaching 50 percent and higher waste reduction levels and doing so cost-effectively. While all of the recycling coordinators with whom we spoke said that their cities collected aluminum, glass, and paper for recycling, and all but one collected plastic, some said that they did not regularly collect biodegradable materials. However, San Francisco’s and Seattle’s recycling coordinators commented that their cities’ programs collect and compost biodegradable materials, such as food discards, yard waste, soiled paper, and wood. The compost made from San Francisco’s biodegradable materials is sold to California farms and vineyards. San Francisco’s recycling coordinator estimates that the composting program increased the city’s recycling rate by 14 percent in 2004. Seattle estimates that composting contributed to increasing its recycling rate by 13 percent in 2003. In addition, recycling coordinators in Atlanta, Austin, and Portland commented that their cities collect residential yard wastes for composting. The advantages of composting include reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills and reducing pollution because less methane gas is produced, according to EPA. EPA has also found that compost can be used to enrich soil, suppress plant diseases and pests, reduce or eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers, and promote higher yields of agricultural crops. Although EPA has no recent national data on the proportion of waste generated by the commercial sector compared with the residential sector, an EPA report estimated that 35 to 45 percent of the nation’s municipal solid waste was generated by the commercial sector in 1997. In addition, the California Integrated Waste Management Board estimated that in 2003 over 60 percent of California’s waste disposal came from the commercial sector. An EPA study found that since commercial waste can often constitute a significant portion of municipal solid waste, recycling commercial waste plays an important role in helping communities meet their recycling goals. Some of the recycling coordinators with whom we spoke commented that their cities have made efforts to increase their overall recycling rates by increasing their commercial recycling rates. For example, Portland, Oregon, distributes recycling containers to businesses and, since 1996, requires all businesses to recycle at least 50 percent of their total wastes. A Portland recycling official told us that he believes that this mandatory commercial recycling has helped increase Portland’s commercial recycling rate by 4 to 5 percent. New York City requires all businesses to separate recyclable materials from trash and has different recycling requirements for different types of businesses. For example, people in office buildings are required to recycle office paper, newspapers, magazines, and corrugated cardboard, and people in food or beverage establishments are required to recycle metal cans, glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles and jugs, aluminum foil products, and corrugated cardboard. Mandating residential and commercial recycling is another practice that some cities use in an effort to increase their recycling rates. For example, Seattle and New York City have laws that require residents to recycle. Seattle’s haulers are instructed not to collect trash cans that contain 10 percent or more recyclable materials. According to Seattle officials, their city’s ordinance mandating recycling has had a positive effect. Six months after Seattle began enforcing this ordinance, city officials announced that approximately 95 percent of the apartments and businesses inspected were recycling correctly and less than 1 percent of household garbage cans were not collected because they contained more than 10 percent of recyclable materials.