Deposit return scheme (recycling) - Part 2

I reckon they will still be needed in border areas.

They did separate their waste, those don't look like general rubbish bags but marked for recycling.

Given that one of the supposed merits of introducing the scheme was less rubbish, if they are going to claim credit for that, then they are somewhat culpable here.

In fairness to the houses in the photos they may have made an effort.

It's hard to tell for certain because the evidence ie. deposit items would be gone anyway.

My point is that if households returned their deposit containers instead of putting them in the bags there wouldn't be any point in pickers ripping the bags.

As for the pickers, they are guilty of offences under the Litter Act.

There's no need for the ad hominem stuff.

I have posted several times on this thread that the culprits for the likes of what was shown in the photos are the pickers and whoever discards the deposit items.

I didn't intend to be unfair to the householders in question and thought I made that clear.

There was no knee jerk on my part and as you well know I have acknowledged problems with the scheme and suggested improvements from early on.

I know the overwhelming majority in this thread are anti DRS but I'm not.

You were unfair to the householders, in successive posts.

The tweet specifically called out:

Recycling bags ripped open

You missed that in your haste to cast blame. That was unfair in act.

You don't know what was in the bags that led the pickers to opening them.

You don't accept any culpability for this as being a side effect of Return, when someone cites reduction in litter due to Return scheme, do you consider that a beneficial side effect?
It is two sides of the same coin.

So spare us any attempt claiming victim status with false claims of "ad hominen stuff" when you were engaged in "victim blaming" and I criticised the positions and claims made in your posts.

I specifically said "in fairness to the houses in the photos they may have made an effort".

It's all for naught though when other householders are putting deposit items in the recycling bags.

This encourages the pickers to go around messing up the streets.

The original tweet provided no balance and pinned the blame on the Green Party and Re-turn.

I was putting the blame right back where I believe it lies, primarily with law breaking litterers and secondly with careless consumers.

That's not victim blaming.

Again, I refute your accusation of victim blaming.

I clarified in my second post that my point was a general one and not aimed at any one house.

I actually said that I didn't know what was in the bags in the photo when they were left out.

I agree putting non scope items in the green bin is ok.

There may be some very limited circumstances in which in scope items end up in general recycling but not enough to make it worthwhile for the pickers to do their rounds.

The main culpability for these bags being ripped open and their contents scattered around our streets lies with the people who did it.

The only way the scheme could prevent it is by shutting up shop.

If people want to make special journeys to the RVM I guess it's their choice but not necessary in my opinion.

You may have missed where I agreed that transport emissions have most likely increased due to DRS.

I just said that we can't quantify the increase at the moment which I think is fair enough.

Thanks for the invite to list the pros and cons of the scheme as I see them but I'll pass.

I've been posting on this thread and earlier versions for a long time and I think my views are well known.

Could it have been seagulls and/or foxes? It's not hard to find pictures like that from the time before DRS. Where were the pictures taken, and when?

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/dublin-news/dublin-city-council-need-to-think-outside-the-box-to-tackle-capitals-litter-problem/a2087890875.html

“The bags on our capital streets are unsightly and get torn open by foxes and seagulls, leaving a terrible mess."

This is the same Green Party that seemed to think that with Return they could do something about people roaming the streets day or night and what they did with their cans and bottles.

They then claimed credit for a purported reduction in litter.

If so they are partly culpable for these side effects. Side effects which could have been forseen.

They cant have it both ways.

And they can do something about it if there are a lot of eligible items being looted, get cracking on the review with the obvious issues with the scheme.

I see 18-20 year olds place bottles and cans that they have paid deposits on into general bins around educational institutions daily. There's no RVM on campus, but a restaurant and a number of vending machines.

I know the cleaners retrieve what they can from these bins and use them as a bonus for themselves - which is why I think a lot of the "bigger bulk" returns are people who work in settings where this type of thing goes on.

Why these people don't hold onto their items for return of their deposit is probably down to practicalities/laziness/not missing the 15 cent etc.

We all know that ReTurn haven't addressed some of the most basic of scenarios so it doesn't surprise me that some of the more nuanced stuff has been (and will most likely continue to be) missed.

Politicians gonna do what politicians do.

They make policies, issue statements, claim credit etc. etc.

Maybe they never foresaw that people would go around upturning bins and slashing bags to make a few euro.

How could we solve it ?

Get the bags off the streets sounds like a plan.

It's a difficult one to figure out, why would people literally throw money away ?

We hear all the time about a cost of living crisis and yet some are willing to treat the deposit as a tax or price increase.

Just today I went shopping and when I went to leave the trolley back there on the ground was an empty Cidona can that wasn't there when I got the trolley.

Just 20 paces from the RVM.

My theory is that young people have decided that DRS is uncool.

Seeing as young people tend to like their drinks this is not good news for the scheme.

(full disclosure, that can is now added to my haul)

Nice idea on the machine in UCC. You can see the receptacle on the machine where students can donate their vouchers.

July 25, 2024

In a partnership with TOMRA Collection, the RVM allows students to recycle bottles and cans and donate their Re-turn tokens to Fáilte Cork, a group supporting incoming refugee students

People literally piss away and put money up in smoke/waste money daily so I don't think the concept of throwing away 15 Cent is anything new.

I do think some of the issue is the lack of a DRS machine on site. Now questions would arise about who is responsible for it and whether it falls in under the emptying schedule etc etc.

A certain cohort of young people probably will never care about this scheme so long as there's a bit of inconvenience involved and the carrot/stick is as low as 15cent. Perhaps as they grow older this changes.

To be clear, I do think that places like this have been let off the hook a bit.

For example there's no reason that these types of venues are absolutely hammered if they haven't a functional DRS, in that perhaps they attempt to use those soft drinks dispensers and promote the use of multiuse containers etc.....but again who's battle is this? It's deffo not return.