Deposit return scheme (recycling) - Part 2

I wouldn't trust your logic as far as I could throw it based on recent events.

Deleted

Sure many were recycing using the recycle bin before this…..

Many have no choice but to collect refunds if you think about it……the interesting bit, longer term for me, will how, over the next few years our consumption of PET and ALU containers under this scheme will reduce because if they don't this whole scheme is pointless.

But they are still 100 percent gone forever………and worse still that 100 percent is likely to increase over and above what it has been for obvious reasons the removal of the PET and ALU items from recycle bins hasn't lead to a reduction in recycling bin collection charges - its likely to lead to an increase in them, whether that increase is paid directly by the consumer (increase in monthly fees) or indirectly by the consumer (subsidy paid by ReTurn to bin companies)

The recycle bin was never going to get us to 90 percent because the appetite wasn't there using it to get us to 90 percent - we didn't try one single thing to try increase the amount of items - in fact if the same marketing budget were spent on recycling using bins as Recycle spend I have no doubt things would have improved - eveny to compartmentalise the bins or providing a seperate bin for PET and ALU - who actually knows - nothing was every trialled or done, but we are told we are copying the ebst schemes in operation EU wide - yet somehow we are finding that there are problems faced by some that "need addressing"…………

There was no appetite for a DRS scheme her either - but here we are - if we don't reduce useage the whole lot is completely pointless - we are just making a number of suppliers, DRS machine providers/collectors richer.

I'm not convinced that ANY of this if of any environmental benefit - which is ultimately what this is about.

It's not if the use of the items increases over time which is what we have seen in other countries with this scheme in operation.

Is the only point of this scheme then, to more accurately measure the amount of items in scope bought versus the amount of items in scope returned?

Because if that is the case, as I think it is, the scheme is going to be deemed a success - but what does it actually matter if it doesn't lead to a reduction in the use of these products??

That would be achieved by increasing this tax by a few hundred percent. People would love that.

Rate of tax

Sugar Sweetened Drinks Tax (SSDT) applies on a volumetric basis at one of the following rates:

• €16.26 per hectolitre on drinks with a total sugar content of five grams or more, but less than eight grams, per 100 millilitres.
• or
• €24.39 per hectolitre on drinks with a total sugar content of eight grams or more per 100 millilitres.

These rates are dependent on the total sugar content of the 'ready to consume' form of the sugar sweetened drink.

Sure aren't all of these tasks "big ones"?

You'd start by disencentivising the producers, who at the moment and for the foreseeable future have it handy.

In your other post you asked this: "but what does it actually matter if it doesn't lead to a reduction in the use of these products??"

DRS has nothing to do with what is in the cans and bottles, just the empties. Do you want to see a reduction in the use of what is in the cans and bottles? If so, why?

I don't know what producers did. If you think it is relevant, give the details. If the government wants to influence consumption, they can use extra taxes. Or a MUP framework.

How would you disincentives producers ?

Their business is producing and selling soft drinks, water, beer etc.

That's where their profits come from.

They currently have a packaging model that facilitates widespread retailing of their products.

The products I am talking about are the ALU and PET containers….we need to reduce the amount of these in circulation - that is the basic premise - increasing the amount is not good for the environment, no matter whether they are reclycled or not.

In response to the "sugar tax" a number of producers reduced the level of sugar in their products……my point being that you can change the behaviour of organisations by taxation - in this instance with the DRS you have shifted almost all of the responsibility onto the consumer.

The board members of Re-turn have one job and one job only which is to run the DRS system.

Reduction in use of PET and ALU is not part of that.

Well, that's the basic premise of the DRS as well, however almost all of the cost and inconvenience is placed on the individual.

It's already been mooted that the deposit will increase if the scheme isn't meeting its targets.

I am saying that if you, as an organisation, decide to use PET and ALU for product distribution you should be disencentivesed from doing so - placing an additional cost on the use of these types of containers seems to be a fairly easy method of doing that……..if that is passed onto the consumer, the organisation will need to deal with the consequences.

Then we are all missing the point.