I think I would agree with my other friendly witness that deposit return systems have proven to be successful. The beer industry is one great example. For almost 100 years, they've been able to recover all of their containers, irrespective of material type, to somewhere between 85% and 95%. It's just really stood the test of time. They have an integrated system where they use reverse logistics to drop off new product and to take back containers.
I might mention that a portion of what they've been able to do so successfully, which has an economic opportunity as well, is to refill. Deposit return places a financial bounty. It creates a value where there might not be any. I spoke of the low value of plastic discards, and that's why we have disparity in the system and why we can't incent recycling. It places a financial bounty or a reward, if you will, on the consumer to do their part, in this case, using the beer example, to take it back when they pick up a new case of beer.
We know that financial incentives are very impactful. We also know that there is some evidence that municipalities have tried other disincentives with mechanisms like clear bags at the end of the curb. It might show, if there's some inspection, if you will, which is very basic, there are too many recyclables in the garbage bag and they give you a little sticker sometimes. It's not a pleasant sticker; it says that you need to try harder. There are disincentives that are placed there as well.
I think, between the two, I would certainly say that we need to really exploit and to take seriously the mechanisms in the market that have worked. There is no question that deposit return is our best result in that regard. I do think that extended producer responsibility is also another incentive, if you will. Making producers pay and internalizing those costs builds incentive and motivation for them to be able to go back and redesign improved packaging and products.