In the United States, the average household uses approximately 150 pounds of glass containers annually, yet over two-thirds of this glass fails to be recycled into new bottles. This is not due to a lack of effort by consumers. Glass is unique among common packaging materials as it costs recycling facilities more to process than they can earn from selling it, and this has been an ongoing challenge for the U.S. recycling system for the past two decades.
According to the EPA, the U.S. has consistently recycled about 31 percent of its glass containers over the last decade. In contrast, the European Union achieved a collection rate of 80.8 percent for glass containers in 2023. This disparity is not due to behavior but rather infrastructure and policy differences, coupled with the challenges of glass being heavy, fragile, and not highly profitable. Consequently, glass does not integrate well with the single-stream recycling system prevalent in the U.S.
The math that broke glass recycling
Cullet, the industry term for crushed and sorted recycled glass, is a sustainable material that can be repeatedly melted and reused without quality loss. Adding 10 percent more cullet to a furnace cuts energy consumption by 2.5 to 3 percent and decreases COâ‚‚ emissions by around 5 percent. Using only cullet in a furnace can result in 58 percent fewer emissions compared to producing glass from raw materials like sand, soda ash, and limestone.
These statistics suggest that glass should be a valuable resource for bottle manufacturers. However, they require cullet that is color-sorted, clean, and ready for use, which is seldom obtained from single-stream recycling facilities.
A 2017 study by the Closed Loop Foundation revealed that single-stream glass costs U.S. recycling facilities $150 million annually due to equipment damage, transportation, and disposal expenses. On average, a facility incurs a loss of $35 for every ton of glass processed. For instance, a Washington, D.C. transfer station spends tens of thousands of dollars yearly replacing screen baskets damaged by glass shards. Additionally, when trucks unload, glass shards become lodged in paper and cardboard, reducing their value.
This issue is referred to as the negative-value problem. While high-quality cullet can be sold, the typical collection process yields a dirty, color-mixed load, often relegating it to use as road base, landfill cover when ground into a sand-like consistency, or simply disposed of.
How we built a system that loses money
The current shortcomings in U.S. glass recycling stem from two major infrastructure decisions made decades apart.
The first was the shift to single-stream collection in the 1990s and 2000s, which increased overall recycling rates but mixed glass with other materials. Consequently, glass often arrived at facilities already broken, contaminating other recyclables and damaging equipment designed for paper and plastic.
The second decision involved shutting down glass-only drop-off programs as city budgets tightened. Without dedicated collection routes, like those used in Italy, Belgium, and Germany to recycle 90 percent of glass containers, American glass lost a clean method for collection.
However, 10 states with container deposit laws stand out. These states, known for their bottle bills, recycle about 70 percent of beverage containers, over twice the national average of 33 percent. Oregon’s deposit system reached an 87 percent redemption rate in 2024, the highest in the nation. Glass returned through deposit programs is typically clean, sorted, and intact — exactly what manufacturers prefer.
What does glass costs your household?
Consumers incur the cost of glass twice. Initially, the price of the bottle is factored into products like wine, beer, sauce, or seltzer. Subsequently, individuals pay municipal recycling fees through property taxes, garbage bills, or both. These fees encompass the average $62-per-ton landfill tipping fee in 2024, along with the additional cost of glass contamination affecting other recyclables.
The actual cost varies significantly by region. New York City’s Department of Sanitation has calculated curbside recycling collection at $686 per ton, a figure that includes labor, fuel, and equipment expenses that extend beyond what households see on their utility bills but are reflected in tax rates.
In states with bottle bills, the financial dynamics differ for households. A 5- or 10-cent deposit can be fully reclaimed, and if a household doesn’t recycle, others can earn money by collecting it.
Glass that would have been a cost to the city instead becomes a small refund for the household and a clean material for manufacturers. This system directly assigns the costs associated with glass use rather than distributing them across all taxpayers.
Glass emissions matter
Glass production demands considerable energy compared to other packaging processes. Producing 1 ton of container glass results in between 0.5 and 1.6 tons of CO₂ emissions, depending on the furnace’s efficiency and the amount of cullet used. Each ton of cullet replacing raw materials saves about 0.67 tons of CO₂ and 1.2 tons of mined sand, soda ash, and limestone.
Applying these figures to the 6 million tons of glass containers landfilled in the U.S. in 2018—the most recent year for which the EPA provides data—illustrates that the country misses out on approximately 4 million tons of avoided CO₂ emissions annually, in addition to more than 7 million tons of raw materials that could have been conserved. This represents a climate cost that recycling rates alone cannot capture.
The Glass Packaging Institute and Boston Consulting Group have devised a strategy to elevate the U.S. glass recycling rate to 50 percent by 2030. This plan emphasizes expanding deposit programs, constructing dedicated glass processing facilities, and reducing reliance on single-stream collection where feasible. Achieving this target would nearly double the current recycling rate without necessitating changes in consumer behavior.
What’s changing, and what isn’t
Seven states, including California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington, have enacted extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws for packaging. These policies transfer the recycling cost burden from municipalities to the companies that sell the bottles. Oregon began enforcing its program in July 2025, and Colorado, Minnesota, and Maryland plan to phase in their programs by 2028.
EPR is poised to alter the economics of glass recycling significantly in the coming decade. When producers are responsible for recycling costs, they must handle contamination from single-stream recycling, not the recycling facility. This shift makes dedicated glass collection more appealing. European experiences demonstrate the efficacy of this approach, yet it remains largely untested on a broad scale in the U.S.
What you can do
- Check if your state has a bottle bill. If it does, redeem your deposit for a clean recycling stream and a small refund. If not, look up your local recycling options using the Earth911 recycling search before putting glass in your curbside bin.
- If your area has glass-only drop-off sites, use them. Many cities offer free drop-off locations at transfer stations or grocery store parking lots. The glass collected from these sites is the type manufacturers prefer.
- Rinse your bottles instead of crushing them. Whole bottles are easier to sort than broken pieces. Take off metal lids and recycle them separately.
- Buy refillable bottles when possible. A refilled bottle does not use any cullet, raw materials, or the recycling system. Programs for returnable beer, milk, and water bottles are slowly becoming more common in the U.S.
- Support extended producer responsibility and bottle-bill laws in your state. Most glass that gets recycled in the U.S. today comes from the 10 states with deposit programs. Expanding these programs is the most effective policy change available.
.
