Deposit return scheme (recycling) - Part 2

That's Killarney.

Change is coming.

https://m.independent.ie/regionals/kerry/south-kerry-news/first-town-in-kerry-to-eliminate-coffee-cups-celebrates-hat-trick-of-awards/a301965306.html

SF agit prop drivel. How does he know what it is motivated by? More economic illiteracy.

Did anything else happen that might explain the increase?

And regardless you are committing the same logical fallacy. The explanations of previous price increases doesnt mean the current price increase has same reason.

Given that we know the recyclables are worth several millions and Return list it as a specific funding source.

You keep running away from that point for obvious reasons.

It will prove nothing as you quote it without understanding. It is entirely plausible as basis for discussion to propose that DRS led to price increases from certain suppliers.

Just as you posted nonsense about media sob stories while being utterly incapable of acknowledging that Return are now using the millions from recyclables to fund their operations.

Do you think that fools anyone?

When you do that, your posts have no credibility.

How many millions does Return expect in revenue from sale of recyclables?

You were the one who kicked this off with the sob story nonsense.

That sort of answer is more common than people might think.

And Doolan is entirely correct.

However, that doesn't excuse what happened when the bin companies up'd their prices becuase Re-turn took a slice of their action.

The consumer is at the mercy of both bastards. And both bastards need to go.

Companies like Greyhound, who don't even pay their taxes here, are cunts no doubt. But Re-turn is no better and the scheme that's been set up has been a fat disaster since it's started. It's simply not fit for purpose in its current form. There's no getting away from that.

I, literally, know nobody IRL that's happy with it.

Why would Oxigen tell you they 'need' cans from you?
Think about that piece of nonsense for a moment.

Are you going to acknowledge that Return have listed the recyclables as a specific source of their revenue?
So you must accept they are valuables to the tune of several millions.
Or just keep coming up with nonsense and deflections like that?

The CPI figures don't show that to be false because the items in the scope of the CPI figures are limited and may not pickup on certain specific suppliers increasing the price on specific products.

The logic would have to be that the companies were making a profit on cans. Over and above the profit they are making from completely unexplained (to me) recurring charges. I am giving them stuff which they want, they don't take stuff they don't want. They have increased the recurring charge (in my case) on a number of occasions before DRS.

And that they were using some of the profit from cans to make the recurring charges lower than they would have been otherwise. It would be logical to ask customers to cover that reduction now, if the profit is lower. But if they were taking all the profit to pass on to shareholders and top executives, those people should take the hit. That is the sort of information which will make things clear, when they present their evidence. Anyway it all seems very rushed, after only a few months to judge market conditions.

The logic would be the companies were supplementing their recurring charges income with income from 'recycling or selling' specific types of material that they had collected from roadside collections. It's very common knowledge that ALU was a particularly lucrative market. One would expect that had the income from that market dropped of a cliff, as it has, that that needs to be made up somewhere. I don't think thats and illogical standpoint and if anything it's perfectly normal in business practice, particularly when you only competition is a state sponsored monopoly going forward.

The profits I am talking about are more to do with retailers and producers using the DRS as an opportunity to increase the base price of their products. Which of course they will never admit and which evidently can't be reacted using the CPI for various reasons. Some good posts on this thread have gone over on detail what has been going on.

Re-Turn is a not for profit entity, funded by the Polluters. They never cost me a cent, so I am not much interested in their internal affairs. I am paying a big whack to Oxigen, so I don't want them conning me into paying even more using Re-Turn as an excuse. Let them justify it to the politicians.

"Re-turn (DRSI CLG) is a not for profit company limited by guarantee, and was formed by producers and retailers in order to fulfil their obligations under the Separate Collection (Deposit Return Scheme) Regulations 2021."

You should release a range of not for profit soda waters and pay yourself a big salary. At least that would be more imaginative trolling than your posts here.

Also you weren't told soda water prices were meaningless because it was only 1 product. Soda water was already overpriced so you cherry picked it as it was coming down anyway when the DRS was launching. The only such outlier you could find it seems due to the fact we've never heard the fecking end of it since.

Yeah a Sunday. Come on! 🤣

Lord Ossian himself said 1.9 billion sold per year so 5.2 million a day.

Well yiippee do! How many used to go in household recycling bins every day before this? Absolutely pointless figures.

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.