I recently came across an old family photo of a farmers market from 1968. There was something noteworthy about the picture that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Then, I realized what it was – the photo was missing plastic and litter. So what happened between then and now? Why are we and our planet getting buried under mountains of plastic that no one wants? Most importantly, what can we do about it?

Tracing the history of plastic soft drink and water bottles provides an example of how we ended up buried under used and unwanted plastic bottles. Many other types of plastic packaging followed a similar path.

The seeds of today's plastic bottle problem were sown in the post-World War II, Madmen era when U.S. businesses were booming, and television and advertising were new and exciting. In those days, the vast majority of Americans watched three TV networks – NBC, ABC, and CBS. All those eyeballs watching the same programs gave brands with national advertising a competitive advantage over local and regional brands. As a result, industries that provided everything from air travel to zippers consolidated, with the big, national brands buying local and regional brands or putting them out of business altogether.

As retailers consolidated, it became more and more critical for soft drink brands like Coke and Pepsi to offer the large chains uniform, streamlined service nationwide. Providing quality service retailers expected was a challenge because the soft drink brands' distribution networks were decentralized. Coca-Cola alone distributed its products through a patchwork of hundreds of independent bottlers. Each bottler had the right to bottle and distribute Coke's products within the bottler's prescribed local market. Improving service to large retail chains meant centralizing bottling.

At the time, soft drink bottles were part of a circular system that kept them from being littered or thrown away. Soft drinks were sold in returnable bottles, which were thicker and heavier than today's disposable bottles, so the bottles could withstand being refilled dozens of times. Consumers left a deposit with the retailer when they purchased their soft drinks and got the deposit back when they returned the soft drink bottle. Bottlers picked up empty bottles from retailers, refilled the bottles with soft drinks, and then delivered them back to retailers for sale to consumers. Well over 90% of the returnable bottles stayed in circulation from year-to-year.

Unfortunately, soft drink brands saw the bottle return system as an impediment to their plans to centralize bottling, so they began experimenting with other types of packaging. Their first experiments were with cans and "no deposit no return" bottles. Then, in 1973, a DuPont scientist named Nathaniel Wyeth patented the first PET (#1 plastic) bottle strong enough to withstand the pressure of a carbonated beverage. The bottles were lightweight, durable, and could be produced inexpensively, all of which made them a good fit with centralized bottling systems. Coke and Pepsi introduced 2 liter PET bottles in 1978, and other sizes of plastic bottles were soon added to their product lines. When Americans switched from drinking tap water to drinking bottled water, the number of used plastic bottles skyrocketed.

Cans and "no deposit no return" bottles were littering the landscape soon after they were introduced. To combat the litter, states proposed regulations known as "bottle bills" that added a deposit on cans and non-returnable bottles. Coke, Pepsi, and other beverage brands thought the bills looked too much like the returnable bottle deposit systems they were trying to eliminate, so the brands opposed the bottle bills. The brands proposed municipal recycling systems as an alternative to the bottle bills. The brands argued that if municipal governments supported the recycling systems, deposits would be unnecessary. The brands won the day, with just ten states passing bottle bills. Even in those states, recycling is the primary solution for keeping used plastic bottles in circulation. The bottle bills do not include a deposit on plastic, and deposits are still the same 5 to 10 cents they were when the bottle bills went into effect 40 or 50 years ago. When most bottle bills went into effect, returning five cans or bottles bought a candy bar, and seven cans or bottles purchased a cup of coffee. Today it takes returning 18 cans or bottles to buy a candy bar and 38 to buy a Dunkin' Donuts medium drip coffee. The deposit is too small to convince many people to collect the deposit.

Unfortunately, litter on American highways, overflowing landfills, and ocean plastic demonstrate that municipal recycling does a poor job of keeping plastic bottles in circulation in the U.S. The latest EPA statistics show that only 30% of plastic bottles are recycled. The remaining 70% end up as a combination of litter and garbage. Also, a few of the plastic bottles that are recycled are turned into new plastic bottles. A typical U.S. plastic bottle has approximately 93% virgin material and only 7% recycled content.

It is 2019. Why are we wedded to an ineffective 1970s-era solution to plastic bottles? Times have changed, and there is room for better solutions. Soft drink brands finished centralizing their bottling systems long ago, and today, they know that plastic bottle litter and waste are a problem. The brands have goals in place to increase the percentage of plastic bottles that are recycled as well as the recycled content in plastic bottles. Also, we can learn from other countries and other markets that have already developed solutions.

Norway has proven that consumers will return plastic bottles if the bottles have financial value. The country recycles 97% of its plastic bottles; 92% of those bottles are made into new plastic bottles. Norwegian consumers take their plastic bottles to reverse vending machines where they insert the bottles into the machines, and the machines dispense their bottle deposits. Germany has a similar deposit system and boasts related recycling statistics for plastic bottles. At a minimum, U.S. states with bottle bills could increase the deposits to meaningful levels and add plastic bottles to the containers that carry a deposit. On a grander scale, we could adopt a system similar to Norway's.

In the U.S., some beverage brands sell their products in returnable, refillable containers, and there is probably an opportunity for more brands to adopt this technique. Locally, Trickling Springs Creamery sells milk in returnable glass bottles. The bottles carry a $2 deposit so that they are worth returning. Mount Defiance Cidery offers refillable growlers and half growlers. Blue Ridge Bucha distributes its kombucha to retailers in barrels so consumers can fill the company's reusable glass bottles. Farther afield, breweries in Oregon are banding together to create a statewide return system for beer bottles. Seven of the state's breweries are currently testing the project. There are also a variety of initiatives aimed at substituting away from plastic bottles. Grocery stores, drug stores, health clubs, health food stores, and coffee houses sell reusable to-go cups and bottles that consumers can fill themselves. Some restaurants offer filtered rather than bottled water or ask diners whether they would prefer filtered water or bottled water. Five-gallon containers with water flavored with fruits and vegetables (spa water) are available in many hotel lobbies, health clubs, and at some business and civic meetings. Last but not least, public places are still required to have water fountains.

With all these solutions available, there is no need to be stuck in the past and drown in plastic. Each of us has the power to decide which existing solutions to use and which new ones to propose and support.