The new recycling system

How in the feck does this thread have nearly 2000 posts?

A conspiracy theory would be pretending that we have to implement this scheme to reduce single use plastic or that it will actually do that.

A conspiracy theory would be that any other alternative is complete madness and can only be concocted by drug addled teenage scientists.

A conspiracy theory would be this will come at zero financial cost to the public.

A conspiracy theory would be that we have to introduce scheme because we are legally mandated to recycle 90%.

A conspiracy theory would be this is convenient for everyone.

A conspiracy theory would be if I told you at the time the Green Man told us all we have to pay and sort our own waste at home that years later we would all have to become mobile trash depositors.

The Green Man definitely exists. As does his conspiracies.

i went back and found this cutting up cans post you speak of, i NEVER said i was going to do that, it was a reply to something someone made about suggesting "taking a photo of a barcode and printing it out and putting it on the can" i responded telling them i'm a noob and don't know anything about computers or how to do all that, followed up with "only closest thing i can do is cut the barcodes and return signs off of any new damaged cans i find and glue or celeotape them to the old cans"

i never said i was going to do that, or suggested anyone to do that.

Gotcha!

@L1011 with respect, this is a discussion forum, where people discuss ideas. When one person forms a conclusion, as you have and as is you right, that is not the end of the discussion, or anything close to a consensus. Its just your opinion.

I don't accept that my proposal is more expensive, more compliacated, or relies on technology that is not already available (at the very least at component parts). I immediately accepted the bill payer point, and pivoted to perhaps having options. You consistently skip over the benefits I was trying to achieve, i.e. keep the waste sector viable, expand to more items, and increase convenience.

I accept you have a different opinion and am enjoying the discussion here. Participation voluntary, if you find it tiresome, remember you don't have to participate, I do hope you continue as you are contributing to a lively discussion.

Okay. I will give you an example, from the re-turn website.

Who is funding the Deposit Return Scheme?

The management and operation of the Deposit Return Scheme does not cost the public or government any money at all. The system is funded through producer fees for each product placed on the market.

Is that claim true or false?

I asked you a question, you initially refused to answer; then replied with nonsense and are now trying to ask a question yourself.

As with the other circular case of this - answer the question asked of you first.

I did answer it with examples, you completely understand it, you are just afraid to admit it, and as you brought conspiracy theories.

Any chance you could answer this please.

Okay. I will give you an example, from the re-turn website.

Who is funding the Deposit Return Scheme?

The management and operation of the Deposit Return Scheme does not cost the public or government any money at all. The system is funded through producer fees for each product placed on the market.

Is that claim true or false?

It's false.

But you are precluded from admitting that fact.

I understand.

We will leave it there so.

I have never attempted to answer the question because you refuse to answer the one given to you

One more time:

Who is the Green Man you keep referring to?

The Green Man is an ideology which cannot be questioned.

Any alternative view points are dismissed out of hand and are written off as madness.

But but but it has a logo. But you know all that.

Now could you answer my question please.

In all honesty, if this scheme makes people cut back on buying multi packs of water it will be a small benefit. No reason why they shouldn't be buying 2L or 5l bottles if they have to and dividing it into reuseable bottles at home.

Does this scheme encourage the use of reusable bottles?

Anywhere that has this scheme that I have looked at the use of single bottles has gone up to the determent of reusable.

If people have to drag their arses to one of these machines to "recycle" 4 bottles what difference if they have to "recycle" 8.

Also it's the psychology of it, we are being told this is brilliant for the environment, if people are doing brilliant things for the environment at their cost and their inconvenience why would bother doing other things? You can only squeeze the nipple so hard before people say ouch.

If we wanted to encourage the use of reusable bottles then we should have spent a fraction of a percent of this scheme in putting free "water fountains" in all our high density areas.

But sure there is no cash grab in that.

Also this scheme is to collect plastic bottles on the go, do many people walk around drinking out of 2 or 3 litre bottles?

Why were they included.

Not every retailer has costs, and the biggest ones will probably eventually make a miniscule income from it; but otherwise yes.

You can go ask re-turn that.

So you have no idea why they are lying?

You have an opinion on everything else, but silence.

Fair enough.

Any parent giving their kids plastic bottles everyday is not going to be swayed by this scheme.

Short of putting straw down, there is very little we can do with that small minority. That will have to come from the children themselves, with the excellent green schools initiative, etc.

But like I said there is far more cost effective ways to encourage the use of reusable, but like I said there is no cash grab, shiny new office, or a whole heap of senior and middle management salaries to be had out of that.