Great thanks!
Yes, but remember that if you bring it to Centra and put it into one of their machines you have to redeem the voucher in a Centra either for cash or against a purchase there.
You can bring it back to any shop which has not got an exemption. Any of the Big supermarkets + Centra, Spar, daybreak, applegreen, circle K (that kinda size) will be taking returns. When you get to newsagents, chances are they will be taking the exemption at first.
To use your example you can bring it back in another chain, in another town and they have to give you cash.
Maybe it's been asked already but can you bring a can etc back to any shop? Or the one you bought it from?
Eg: If I buy a bottle from Lidl in Tuam
That tends to work out so well here when you give a monopoly to such a company, with zero incentive for them to run the service well from the consumers pov.
It's a non-profit company
interesting, especially the last part you mentioned about the latter outweighing the former in regards of the unclaimed deposits for some cans ending up in bins. the same logic was applied in another thread when relating to people scamming the machines. long story short if possible to scam the machines it will be hard to detect until after the number of apparent unclaimed deposits become 0% and starting going the opposite way due to too many scam redeems. once that happens it will begin eating into the profits. There was even a joke posted there about achieving a 140% recycling rate lol.
Some person somewhere in a country that had a simular scheme, was able to keep putting the can into the machine again and again, made a bunch of profit then got caught and charged with fraud.
But they are exactly the sort of purchases least likely to be ending up in green bins at the moment / ending up in littering (as you note) and not in the recycling chain. This needs to get to 90 percent?
That may not be the majority of purchases but it is not insignificant either.
Seems a significant amount of purchases not prioritised.
Theres also the growing numbers getting home deliveries.
Any Re-Turn labelled cans which escaped into the wild before they should have (and I bought one before Christmas) won't cost the retailer anything, it'll be an ever so tiny loss to Re-Turn. But every bottle or can which the producer/importer has to pay for up front, and ends up in green bin / landfill / etc is a gain for Re-Turn. The latter is going to far outweigh the former.
That really only affects people buying water, soft drinks etc on a one-off basis in small shops (and these are the ones most likely to be littered). The vast majority of cans and bottles are sold in multipacks in supermakets and the people who buy them are going back there every week, same as they're already doing with the glass beer bottles they buy and bring back to the bottle bank in the supermarket car park. My local Molloys doesn't have a bottle bank but it doesn't matter because any beer bottles I buy there are just brought back to the supermarket I'm going to anyway.
I suppose they might be in stock rooms but unless someone makes a mistake they won't go on the shelves until Feb 1.
It would be costing the shop owner money.
By the way off topic, if anyone wants to save real money Lidl are clearing some non logo craft beers at MUP.
It's a win win, you get beer at a bargain price and you can throw the empties in the recycle bin.
If you were to redeem that can when feb 1st comes, would it be considered fraud?
Officially they shouldn't be out, stuff right now may have had it paid, but the can i got in August certainly didn't!
Does it not mean that if you see can or bottle on the shelf today that the retailer would have paid the deposit to the wholesaler ?
I saw the picture earlier in the thread of a craft beer can with logo but I suspect that was an outlier.
Some beer cans, nothing else yet for me
It's a rather important point for end users, that the majority of retailers won't be taking them back, significantly affecting the inconvenience to those users. Whatever you mean by "Planned for" or not, it clearly shows the convenience of end users was not a priority in the scheme or "planned for".
Has anyone noticed the logos on soft drinks, bottled water yet?
Does that mean I should be setting them aside to claim back the deposits when the machines are operational?
Might be a way to snaffle up some cents before the scheme kicks in and I to pay the deposits when purchasing.
This is how these schemes operate everywhere
Indo making a front page headline out of something known since day one and always planned for
Less than 1/3rd of shops will offer a refund. What an absolute joke of a scheme. Whoever signed off on this should be sacked immediately. I give it six months and a sizeable chunk of taxpayers money before it goes the way of the e-voting machines.
It's not the worst idea as a way of kick-starting the scheme, even if only for a week or two.
It's the way a lot (the majority?) of new products are marketed - selling at a hugely below cost price for a short introductory period. I do understand that this is 'different', it's not a product as such, and they don't want to add to the start-up costs. But even something like 15p deposit, 20p on return for the first month (on logo-ed items) could help get it off to a positive start.
You want to get back deposits you didn't pay?
AA Way to increase recycling rates wold be if this new RVM scheme did not require the new logo on recycleables and if they was willing to accept all cans/bottles as eligible, even from before feb 1st. they're too greedy. at best the consumer breaks even. no profit to be made from this scheme from the consumers side of things unless they redeem the deposit on bottles/cans they did not buy
Because the RVM has to be able to verify that it is a deposit paid item before it will pay back on it.
Why can't the cans and bottles be crushed?
The 2 big issues with your plan, which isn't a bad one from a recycling point of view, is that it relies on enforcement and products don't get separated.
In an instance of your example where somebody gets fined and then challenges the fine it could in theory go in front of a judge and that winds up being very costly for all involved.
The current system allows you the freedom to dispose of your can or bottle whichever way you choose to, be it general waste, recycling or RVM you don't get fined unless you litter (if littering fines get enforced)
A way to increase rates would be to introduce huge fines for not recycling, and increase general littering fines which are laughable, and maybe consider actually enforcing them. This scheme is little different to a fine, you just pay the fine in advance and once you prove your innocence the fine is refunded. Of course many would have an issue with that but personally I would welcome it instead of this idea, which will have a lot of unintended consequences and stuff they are not openly declaring, e.g. the carbon footprint of making and maintaining these machines. Fines would ideally be a based on a % of your income, like other countries do for speeding tickets (and I imagine other things).
Reading through the posts makes me glad I don't buy bottled water, minerals in bottles or cans and will continue to put the very rare empty squash bottle in my recycling.
I would have serious doubt that the hoped for benefit will be achieved.
Not sure but thermal printer paper doesn't last that long anyway...
Good question.
I haven't heard that there will be one.
I wonder will there be an expiry date on the vouchers from the return machine?
