The new recycling system

On your points

1. I thought aluminium would be more expensive than glass? Maybe aluminium will be cheaper now than it was because it's going to be recycled better with the new system, although recycled stuff usually costs more I generally find

2. Makes sense yes

3. Considering points 1, 2 and 4 we should actually be getting more beer, not less, for the same price, also agree with you on your follow up

4. I have seen the mobile canning facility a few times because I'm regularly in a brewery, never seen a bottle one mind

5. Dark bottles would do the same as cans in this situation

I look forward to the specials going back to bottles

GORDON BENNETT! that's a good'un! Cor'Blimey!

You're right, there IS money to be made. You know it makes sense. If everything stays cushty and our recycling endevours are successfull, by this time next year we'll be millionaires! LOVELY JUBBLY!

He who dares, wins! all we need to do is whip around there looking lively and real sharpish, with a splash of brute of course.

Collection drives recycling and this scheme is all about circularity and that is why I dont believe your version works.

I don't have a version TBH.

But this scheme has very little to do with recycling. This is a collection scheme. 75% of the bottles could be converted into energy by burning and that is technically them reused - recycled. So collection does not necessarily drive recycling in the ideal way the vast majority think it should. Collection drives more consumption.

The fact is no where that I have seen where this scheme has been adopted has decreased the use of single use plastic, the opposite is in fact true.

The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste directive is certainly not the panacea you think it will be, especially now considering the final draft that was passed was significantly watered down.

So the pertinent question remains, why are we spending billions going forward on a scheme that has been proven conclusively not to work or in reality make the actual problem we should be solving worse.

It's pure theatre plain and simple.

There's is a few places that do the glass bottles of milk and some that will deliver them to your home, expect to pay through the nose for it though

We have had too massive levies on this type of containers recently. What did a tin of beer go, 50-60%? You'd struggle to find a larger increase on any product in my memory.

Obviously the goal was different, "health" but with the same net effect of reducing these container. There is no evidence to suggest consumption has decreased because of them.

The reality is less than 10% of waste in the EU is produced by the household. The thin edge of the wedge is again been hammered.

It's pure theatre, nothing else.

Don't forget we will also be recycling much more cans and bottles so there's the win for the environment as well 👍

You know the answer

I know, I gave the answer several times, it's pure and simple theatre.

Go start whatever thread you want, what I stated is completely on topic of this one.

They are reusable items not single use.

Completely moot.

Anywhere that has this scheme has seen a significant rise in single use and a significant drop in reusable.

Seems you've already done that for me... What did you find?

Have you looked at countries that don't have the scheme?

I'd be fairly certain it's the case that single use is replacing reusable everywhere and you're doing bad science again.

The statistics are probably a lot more complicated than that.

Let us say that prior to the introduction of this scheme, 10% of plastic bottle were single-use and 90% were recyclable. However, because of the lack of deposit, only half of the recyclable plastic bottles were recycled, meaning around 55% were effectively single-use and 45% were actually recycled.

With the introduction of the scheme, the amount of single-use plastic bottles went to 20%, but of the 80% recyclable, the actual rate of recycling went up to 75%. As a result 40% of the total were effectively single-use and 60% were actually recycled, an increase of 15% in the latter.

That makes your conclusion correct, but also makes the scheme effective at what it is doing.

Well then, you also know that we are not "billions going forward on a scheme that has been proven conclusively not to work". The scheme has shown conclusively in Germany to work. Their collection rate for single use plastic containers it By your own admission, the function of the scheme is collection.

German use of single use plastic has risen exponentially to the determent of reusable.

Of course in this new age where people abandon anything resembling critical thought that is seen as a success.

Again, I haven't the skill set to deprogram anyone that has themselves imbedded in that cult.

So not much point debating this topic with you, is there?

You gave me no answer. I asked one specific question and you evaded it entirely.

You have taken figures in isolation to try support an argument when it appears likely they do nothing of the sort. This is bad science and would get you a fail in any academic situation. And that is your fault, as you're the one cherry picking

What are you talking about?

You have multiple times on here citied the directive as the reason this scheme needs to implemented.

Both sides of your mouth indeed.