GRRN has also encouraged communities to pass resolutions urging soft drink manufacturers to use recycled plastic in their bottles. Eight communities have done this:

• City of Los Angeles (April 2000)
• Point Arena, California (January 2000)
• San Francisco Board of Supervisors (December 1999)
• Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority (November 1999)
• Gainesville, Florida (March 1999)
• Alameda County, California (March 1999)
• West Hollywood, California (March 1999)
• Winona County Commission, Minnesota (January 1999)

These resolutions grew out of GRRN’s campaign to get Coca-Cola to make good on its 1990 promise to use recycled content in its plastic soda bottles. The campaign in part has been successful. In April 2000, Coca-Cola stated it would use 10% recycled content in a quarter of its bottles in the year 2000.

While these Coca-Cola resolutions and Carrboro’s producer responsibility resolution have no teeth and their direct impact is difficult to measure, they have an educational benefit and begin to exert important pressure on product manufacturers. In some cities, they have served as precursors to stronger resolutions. Indeed, when Los Angeles and San Francisco did not see any progress on increasing recycled content in plastic bottles, they passed a motion and a resolution, respectively, restricting future contracts with beverage companies or vendors that sell plastic beverage bottles to those who provide bottles with significant recycled content.

Los Angeles’ motion does not specify percentages, but San Francisco’s resolution is more explicit: "with at least 10% recycled content by the end of the year 2002 and at least 25% recycled content by the end of the year 2003." Los Angeles’ motion does ask all city departments (including the Los Angeles Convention Center and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and Sports Arena) to review their contracts with beverage companies and vendors to determine if beverage containers they supply contain post-consumer recycled content. The departments are supposed to report the results of such reviews to the city council within 90 days.(5)

This resolution and motion may have a more specific impact than the earlier resolutions simply calling on Coca-Cola and other soft drink manufacturers to use recycled plastics in their bottles.

Another local resolution with more cause and effect was Los Angeles’ February 1999 resolution addressing Miller Brewing Company’s new plastic beer bottle. The resolution called on Miller to ensure that the bottle is compatible with the current recycled PET stream and would not increase processing costs or downgrade the quality or market price of recovered PET for local governments and recyclers. It also asked that Miller use at least 25% recycled content in all new bottles. Furthermore, the resolution authorized the city to determine how much the unrecyclable Miller beer bottles would cost it and to present Miller with a bill to recoup those costs. When Miller publicly unveiled its new plastic beer bottle in March 2000, it directly addressed some recycling issues.(6)

Berkeley, California, is another example of a city that passed a local resolution with some teeth: its comprehensive and unified plastics policy (passed June 27, 2000, by the Berkeley California City Council). In addition to a general statement that manufacturers and producers of plastic products and packaging must take some form of stewardship over their material, the resolution calls for the city to:(7)

• Add plastics with viable end markets to the city’s curbside collection program and encourage citizens to avoid purchasing plastic packaging;
• Encourage any local efforts for refillable plastic containers for beverages, solid foods, and other grocery products;
• Promote and encourage source reduction and recycling of plastics and purchase of products containing recycled materials by all city departments and contractors; and
• Investigate the negative environmental impacts of polyvinyl chloride in the construction sector and from consumer packaging and recommend actions.

Passing resolutions and motions can be an important EPR tool for local government. But without follow-up, they may have little impact.