I hope so, because if they are only counting Return items I think we could be in trouble. And there seems to be considerable debate about the accuracy of the current figures from other recycling efforts such as green bins.
I would guess that 90% is a combined target of all recycling efforts.
I just can't see staff arguing over a 15c deposit with someone who has spent say €35 on food etc.
Also I suppose there is an Option 3 during the transition.
If the restaurant has old stock they can just hand it out with no hassle.
If you buy a can in a cafe to drink the can at the cafe, they should not charge you the deposit as you leave the can behind when you leave. The cafe then recycles the can. Same for pubs say that have Red Bull for mixers etc.
However- the cafe will be charged a deposit by their wholesaler, and it is up to the individual business whether they collect the cans and bring to an RVM, or simply pass the cost on to the consumer to cover it and recycle/dispose as normal. But that would be a price increase on the menu, not a separate deposit.
From the hospitality guidelines below, but I suppose "obligated" is doing some heavy lifting there... From a customer service point of view I can't see places asking customers to take their cans with them
"The hospitality sector is split between on-site consumption and off-site consumption. Businesses that predominantly cater for onsite consumption are not obligated to charge a deposit for in scope products. The rationale for this is that the empty containers remain on premises and are consumed on-site. It is up to each establishment to determine whether or not to charge the deposit. If a deposit is charged, the consumer can take their container off site. If the deposit is not charged, then the business is responsible for collecting the containers and taking them to a Return Point Operator to reclaim their deposit."
And if those items are charged the deposit, and not returned properly... that'll count against us reaching our 90% target.
The argument the scheme was setup for the majority of scenarios doesn't hold water when you need to get 90%. You can't afford to be losing the percentages from these scenarios, from deliveries etc by forcing people to go to larger places with RVMs to return correctly. Other countries seem to have more smaller manual return outlets.
Option 2.
That is exactly what will happen. Nobody is going to continue on with their day out shopping, carry a can / bottle, get on public transport, walk home and keep that can / bottle in a bag until the next time they go to the shop.
I wish I could have been part of the planning meetings when this was being proposed with scenarios and use cases being discussed. Just to understand the level of ineptitude we have at government level. Its baffling.
i feel you, i been making the exact same point over a week ago but no one ever has an answer/response to it here. People that discard their cans often have a habbit of squeezing it before throwing it out the car window, not sure why but i think its meant to help them throw it further, makes it easier to throw when smaller. It's a shame that it goes to waste. If the scheme accepted damaged cans or even gave as little as 5 cent back, THEN streets would be cleaner, because its impossible and unreastic when one thinks all the people discarding their cans on the road/streets will discard the cans in a perfect undamged condition. infact if a can a person is holding onto to get their deposit back, does get damaged, then it gives them more reason to throw away the now useless can as they no longer have a reason for holding onto it. so in effect the scheme not accepting damaged cans actually makes the environment worse in this sense.
But another puzzler that may interest you that no one here has been able to answer is this: if our target goal to reach by 2029 that has been forced on us by the EU has been set at reaching a recycle rate of 90% (aka 9 out of 10), then how can that goal even be possible if more than everyone 1 out of 10 people decide to keep recycling their bottles/cans at home, or just don't bother to bring them to an RVM? if more than every 1 in 10 people decide not to bother with going to an RVM = reaching 90% goal is impossible
you could have an air compressor with some different shaped caps attached for recombobulating damaged bottles
this is one of the weird aspects about it, people keep talking about how it's help keep the streets clean cos bottles/cans will be picked up to returned but littered bottles/cans are usually at least partially bent out of shape /damaged
i'd imagine people who drive would be more inclined i guess, but i dont.
does that 8% include disabled & elderly people who are being scammed with a stealth tax?
Do cans have to be uncrossed? What happens if they get damaged.
the return me logo isn’t a very strong. Image to spot either on the cans bottles.
this has all the hallmarks of a hangover decision making meeting.
Easily done, a quick squish of a can and let them recycle it if you don't want to carry an empty can around until you get home or rip the plastic wrap off a plastic bottle if it has one. Either way it ends up being recycled (I would hope) without someone capitalising on your deposit.
indeed, sadly that has already been brought up 50 or 60 so pages back in the other DRS thread. Worst case scenerio i imagine would be an in-house thing where you pay for the cans + deposit, and then they clean up the tables and pocket the deposit/return the cans themself. if you pay a deposit on a can, you have every right to deny them taking it from you.
i already thought that's where the recycled paper inside toilet roles came from? no? i accepted that without complaining at all. after all it would explain the color of the paper. recycled paper is often a darker color when compared to its fresh un-recycled counterpart. but anyway its good to see a circular economy being active and seeing things being re-used and re-cycled. That is a good thing. i don't mind where my cardboard box is recycled from. i'm not fussy.
As for the contaminated water, its considered waste water anyway, after cleaning or bathing the materials, its obviously not going to be re-used for cleaning anything else at that point. it goes without saying. thats a given.
I hope there won't be a market for wayward youngsters cafe hopping lifting empty cans from uncleared tables 🤣🤣
I agree most people out for a meal won't want to take a slightly leaky can home in their handbag or coat pocket.
Maybe restaurants will switch to glass bottles or soft drinks on tap to avoid the issue altogether.
This crossed my mind today. I had lunch with a few friends. There were 3 cans left on the table after us.
I couldn't imagine bringing them home in my bag, so some establishments would play the system I'm sure and charge AND return cans left behind.
Recent surveys showed that about 8% wouldn't bother with the returns so you'd be joining that minority at least
i think this is it. i just can't see wrap my head ahead going through all this effort & time consumption to save €50/100 euro a year. might work one night delivering take aways at a local chinese\dominoes to make that up & just use the green bin for the rest of the year lol
we haven't got our machines in yet (not sure who's to blame on that one) but we're been told it will be part of our jobs now, which is unreal cos we barely have enough staff/hours in work to get enough done as it is.
To be completely fair to McDonald's their plastic bottles had the re-turn logo (and deposit) from day 1 without ambiguity.
Correct
Not sure if every cafe etc will charge the levy but all of them can
Sorry, what? If I get a can in a cafe, they can charge me the levy but I have to take it to a different shop to recycle because the cafe is exempt from having to take it back?
@SteM
So I think that means hospitality businesses must charge the deposit if they sell in scope items. They are only exempt from having to take the item back and refund the deposit.
I.e. in your earlier post it is option 2 only (they cannot legally do your option 1).
I think with option 2 cans will be left behind and there is nothing stopping the owner or staff taking these to an RVM for some free cash. I guess some cafes will move to glass bottles or fountains (like pubs do).
Interestingly I did spot a sign up in McDonalds last week about this (McDonalds sell some juices and bottled water in PET bottles), it had a compliant QR code too. I'll try get a pic next time I pass there.
Maybe I'm incorrect. We were talking about Cafes so I assume 'eat in' rather than takeaways.
All Hotels, Restaurants, Bars and Cafes (HORECA) are required to register with Re-turn and will automatically be eligible for a Take Back Exemption once completed. This is based on the premise that the majority of drinks containers are purchased for on-site consumption. A Take Back Exemption means that a business is not obligated to take back in scope drinks containers from consumers. In this case, businesses must clearly display the Take Back Exemption notice which provides a QR code and website details for nearest Deposit Return point locations. Businesses that primarily operate as “Food to Go” Retailers will have the option to apply for a Take Back Exemption. The criteria for this will apply to premises with a store size of 250 sq. metres or under. Definition of store size may be accessed here. Online Retailers also have the option to apply for a Take Back Exemption, subject to these Retailers displaying a QR Code and Re-turn website address on the receipt / sales documentation, allowing customers access to Deposit Return points locations.
Or Option 3, aw I suspect will prevail. Which is charge per option 2 and also claim back per option 1 when most of your customers leave their cans behind them on the table.
I don't think that's quite right - #1 is only if the person is dining in as the can/bottle stays on site. #2 They should charge you the deposit only if you're getting takeaway. It's taken off site to be consumed and therefore becomes the responsibility of the consumer. From my understanding there's no provision for selling a can to be consumed on site and charging a deposit.
Yes I think your theory is correct... Eamonn Ryan was likely asleep while this was being discussed
Which RVM was out of order? Would be good to keep track of them... Did you say it to somebody in the shop?
OK, so are you thinking the expected reduction in SUP will come from 150ml-250ml kids bottles being withdrawn from the market due to the cost of DRS? You haven't mentioned any other ways single use containers will reduce.
Would you agree that kid size drinks won't be really significant in unit count terms, i.e. they are a tiny part of the overall volume of almost 2bn single use containers sold in Ireland? [I wholeheartedly agree they should never have been introduced]
In relation to beer, I am aware of the 440ml for craft beer, but I didn't mention 440ml in relation to items currently sold in that size. 500ml, as you may know, is still the standard for mainstream beer cans in ROI. My point is if Diageo or Heineken were to decide they would prefer to supply the market in 440ml containers, so that say a 24-pack of 440ml cans would maintained the old price point per slab after DRS, that would increase their can output for the same volume sold.
Were it to happen, that would likely increase single use containers. There is plenty of precedent there already for beer companies tinkering with sizes- 18x300ml bottles were introduced to have a 'slab' of beer saleable at lower price points; in the UK, I think the whole market has moved to 440ml cans, etc.
So I think we will see moves like this, meaning less volume per container.
I just can't see how you would expect Re-turn / DRS to do anything to reduce single use containers, as you mentioned yesterday. In fairness, correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure reducing single use containers is a part of their remit either - their remit is simply a collection ratio, nothing to do with reduction of sale into market.
There is currently no incentive whatsoever for producers or retailers to pivot from single use container supply, there are incentives for them to sell more units.
The one I passed was out of order. Meanwhile I have a box in my car with bottles and cans to return, not sure what will be accepted back or not
In this thread and others I keep hearing it repeated that we copied the system in Germany. If even Eamon Ryan is aleady talking about version 2, then did we copy their version 1 system?!? Because if we copied their system exactly, we wouldn't be having these teething problems. I stand by my theory that we didn't copy the German system but instead reinvented the wheel.
