Watch as that goalpost shifts to 'first full calendar year' when May comes around and targets are missed.
Given that there were a lot of in-scope products that deposits weren't paid on for a few weeks in the lead up to the full rollout I'd say the first full calendar year, is likely to be worse than the May 24-May 25 figure so that would not be a smart move.
They should also give the returned figure as a % of how many in-scope products were sold. There was a Newstalk breakfast debate yesterday morning, John Gibbons and Larissa Nolan both agreed that the figure of 900m sounds great but without knowing how many weren't recycled it's a bit of a pointless figure.
There are only two published targets on the Re-turn website.
77% by 2025 and 90% by 2029.
If we assume that the "by 2025" means by the end of Q4 2025 then the outcome won't be known until next January.
https://search.app/5tX2jx37A1aCo26b8
I'd love to get some details on where and how the recycling is done as well.
They also created themselves cushy jobs and nice pensions from what not used to be an issue as mostly everyone recycled into green bins
And created a problem where in cities trash bins and bags are being ripped open now looking for cans and bottles leading to more litter
what happens if they don’t meet targets? Have we known any quango to ever be punished?
Are these container recycling targets or container return targets?
@jj880 I think when I looked at it earlier on thread, those targets related to collection.
What a carry on. No wonder we have posters coming on here to tell us they're "recycling" more with this scheme when re-turn.ie is so full of 💩. Cheers for highlighting that for us @elperello
Here it is, from the EU website directly. The EU has not set recycling targets. They have set collection targets.
Note how Return have changed the wording from "separate collection for recycling", to just "recycling."
The Single-use Plastics Directive (
Directive (EU) 2019/904
) sets targets for the separate collection for recycling of waste single-use plastic beverage bottles. By 2025, Member States shall meet the target of 77% for the separate collection for recycling of waste single-use plastic beverage bottles, by weight of all such single-use bottles placed on the market. By 2029, this target increases to 90%.
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/single-use-plastics-rules-calculation-verification-and-reporting-data-separate-collection-waste-2021-10-07_en#:~:text=By%202025%2C%20Member%20States%20shall,this%20target%20increases%20to%2090%25.
It's a given that Re-turn can only forward for recycling what it actually collects.
In the link I posted earlier they state -
What will happen to the drink containers once they have been collected?
All containers collected will be sent for recycling. The Deposit Return Scheme focuses on maximising the volume and quality of material collected for recycling
Of course a certain amount of cans/bottles will be recycled from other sources IE. bin companies.
So the recycling rate could be greater than what is collected by Re-turn.
If the targets are not met Ireland could be fined by the EU.
By the way it has been clarified several times on this thread that Re-turn is not a quango.
I have zero confidence in anything said by Re-turn given how they have blatantly misrepresented "collected for recycling" and "recycling" on the website.
"Sent for recycling" doesn't actually mean it will be recycled.
We are an EU member, EU is not some sort of boogie man, goalposts get moved all the time and some member often refuse to do much including the likes of Germany
Take the CO2 EU emission targets, not a single member will reach them, so goal posts will be shifted
And yes they are a quango, there are no penalties to this entity if they don’t reach the targets
You think return will pay the EU fines you scaremonger with?
A quango or QUANGO (less often QuANGO or QANGO) is an organisation to which a government has devolved power, but which is still partly controlled and/or financed by government bodies. The term was originally a shortening of "quasi NGO"
Thats exactly what ReTurn is.
I'm not scaremongering.
I qualified the fines issue by saying we could be fined.
As you say political positions can change.
If you want to say Re-turn is a quango you can but that doesn't mean it is one.
So what is ReTurn?
Can a private company come in and place their own machines next to return ones
And get same or better prices from whoever is doing the actual recycling
Can return go bankrupt? Can one see their accounts like one can with private limited companies? What are the penalties to return if EU targets are not met? Why would the state and taxpayers have to pay this penalty
return are a quango, no amounts of spin changes the fact
No
Can return go bankrupt? Can one see their accounts like one can with private limited companies?
Yes
What are the penalties to return if EU targets are not met? Why would the state and taxpayers have to pay this penalty
Because the Member State is responsible.
No comment.
You basically made the point yourself that it’s a quango with your answers
It walks like a quango, it quacks like a quango, it looks like a quango, it smells like a quango
… it’s a quango
Return are WORSE than a QUANGO. The government have given Return a monopoly and devolved powers to them (typical of QUANGOs) but without subjecting them to the scrutiny \ putting Government appointees on the board you would expect with a full QUANGO.
So when people say Return aren't a QUANGO, that really is no defence or excuse of them.
Like I said before, you can call it a quango if you like.
But don't quote me as supporting your error.
Obviously I don't believe Re-turn are a quango.
That's not necessarily intended as a defence or excuse for Re-turn.
Sure comes across that way.
So what are they then?
And if you can't answer that, and it is not intended as a defence or excuse of them, what's the point of the numerous posts? Why even dispute?
You are correct that sent for recycling doesn't mean it's actually recycled.
If it turns out that it's not recycled the entire project will be in deep trouble.
I hope I haven't laboured the point.
I have answered and made my case before several times.
They don't fit the normal definition of a quango.
They are not Government funded or controlled by a Department.
They will be judged on their performance and results not what they are defined as.
You haven't answered. What are they then?
You well understand the point the poster was trying to make.
You can't come up with an alternative term to describe them, just repeating they are not a quango. How does it materially change the point the poster was trying to get across?
They have in effect been funded by the Government by establishment of a monopoly for them that comes with a revenue stream.
They operate by Government fiat. They can't just make unliteral changes to the operation of the scheme without referring back to the Government, can they? So in judging their performance and results, also being judged is the parameters of the scheme as established by the Government.
What's worse than some quangos is that the Government have even less control or oversight of them, despite devolving powers to them and establishing a line of funding for them. No government appointees on the board.
If they don't meet their targets they will just go begging to the government to increase deposits. So they sure quack like a quango.
So for the purposes of this discussion, it is reasonable to refer to them as a quango, or as I have done, worse than a quango.
We had this same conversation months ago.
You introduced this "worse than a quango" category then.
I outlined the reasons why I believe Re-turn,is not a quango.
We failed to agree then and seems unlikely to agree now.
I see you have quoted my post.
Please clarify if this means I am no longer on your ignore list.
And we wouldn't be having the conversation again, if you didn't keep replying to posters despite still being completely unable to define what Re-turn is, or how it alters the material points being made.
So don't be surprised when multiple posters on the thread continue to refer to them as a quango, a usage I have justified in the context of this discussion in previous post.
Can return go bankrupt?
Given that they have been handed a scam to more or less print money I severely doubt that is a possibility.
