Right: A resident fills a reusable plastic bottle from a public drinking fountain in Bundanoon, NSW. The town recently called for a ban on the sale of bottled water.
.
.
Arguments in favour of a container deposit and refund scheme
1. Containers are a major source of litter
It has been claimed that containers constitute a very large proportion of Australia's litter problem.
On June 17, 2008, Jason Woods, the Federal member for Latrobe in Victoria, made the following comments during a debate in the House of Representatives, 'Figures from the 2007 Clean Up Australia Day show that beverage containers and associated litter account for more than 20 per cent of all litter collected, up from 18.5 per cent of litter collected in the 2001 Clean Up Australia Day.'
Similarly, in 2008, Australians for Refunds on Cans and Bottles included the following statistics in a submission the group made to the Australian Federal Parliament, 'Firstly, figures from the 2006 National Litter Index showed that drink containers are the Number One litter item by volume and the Number Three litter Item by quantity. Secondly, one third of litter collected on Clean Up Australia Day this year were drink containers. Thirdly, by comparing production and recycling rates for drink containers it can be seen at least 3 billion drink containers are not recycled in Australia
each year. Many of these 3 billion drink containers become litter.'
It has also been stated by some critics that the situation is worsening. Australians for Refunds on Cans and Bottles have stated, 'The problem of drink container litter has got worse under the National Packaging Covenant. We should not wait until the end of the present covenant before introducing Container Deposit Legislation.'
On September 25, 2008, The Total Environment Centre posted statistics on its Internet site. It noted that The Keep Australia Beautiful Branded Litter Study revealed that 47% of litter in Australia is made up of containers, including alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers and milk containers. The states where the percentage was highest were Western Australia (with 61.6%) and the Northern Territory (with 54.1).
2. A container deposit and refund scheme will reduce littering
It has been claimed that a deposit and refund scheme will substantially reduce Australia's litter problem. On June 17, 2008, Jason Woods, the Federal member for Latrobe in Victoria, made the following comments during a debate in the House of Representatives, 'Based on South Australian figures, a national scheme could save up to 500,000 tonnes of packaging landfill each year-equal to about 12 billion bottles and cans. That would be 12 billion bottles that are currently not being recycled, that are lining our streets and that are flowing into our stormwater drains and down our creeks or taking up space in landfills...
Container deposit legislation will provide more incentives for people to recycle and can work in conjunction with existing kerbside recycling services.'
As an indication of the extent to which a refund deposit scheme can effect how consumers dispose of litter it has been noted that when South Australia increased its refund on bottles and cans from 5 to 10 cents there was a dramatic increase in the number of containers being recycled.
On October 29, 2009, The Advertiser reported, 'South Australians recycled 76.8 million more bottles and cans in the year after the drink container refund was doubled to 10c.
Environment Minister Jay Weatherill ... revealed the decision to lift the drink container deposit scheme refund from 5c to 10c last September prompted South Australians to return 592.55 million containers in the year to August 31, up from 515.7 million in the 2007-08 financial year.
That resulted in $33.5 million more money in the pockets of those choosing to recycle and 48,417 tonnes of containers saved from landfill.
Mr Weatherill said the results should encourage other states to introduce a similar scheme.'
On June 26, 2008, the ABC's 7.30 Report telecast a segment dealing with container deposit schemes. One of those who commented was Jeff Angel of the Total Environment Centre. Mr Angel stated, 'We estimate the national average for beverage container recycling is about 40 per cent, and in South Australia it's up to 70 or 80 per cent. So clearly, if you have a container deposit system, you can double the level of beverage container recycling.'
3. It has strong popular support
A number of surveys have indicated that a container deposit and refund scheme has strong support among Australian consumers.
Family First Senator, Steve Fielding, has stated, 'Australians want to contribute to helping the environment. This scheme works by encouraging people to earn extra cash by claiming the cash for picking up and returning empty cans and bottles. More than 80% of Australians support a container deposit scheme and the Rudd government should be listening to them...'
In 2008, Australians for Refunds on Cans and Bottles included the following statement in a submission the group made to the Australian Federal Parliament, 'The number one prerequisite for an effective and successful litter policy is public support. Container Deposit Legislation has long had a high level of public support. The deposit system in SA has twice been shown to have a public approval rating of over 90%. Opinion polls in other states have shown similar results. On April 10th 2008, in the Herald Sun, 220 community groups stated their support for the introduction of a container deposit system in Victoria.'
4. A deposit and refund scheme need not increase the cost of canned and bottled goods
It has been claimed that a deposit and refund scheme can be implemented without additional costs to the consumer. In Adelaide where a similar scheme has been operating for thirty years, beverages sold in refundable bottles are no more expensive than they are in other states. It would appear that the expense of the refund does not have to be automatically passed on to the consumer. Being able to reuse or recycle containers represents a significant saving to manufacturers and may mean that they can afford to offer a refund without having to charge the consumer an original deposit.
Even when a deposit is charged a recycling scheme can represent an overall cost saving to most consumers. Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam, has claimed, 'We will pay an additional 10c for cans and plastic drink bottles at the counter, and get that money back when we recycle it.
That tiny cost at the point of sale will be offset by savings to Council ratepayers and a boost to Federal Government Funds. By increasing recycling the scheme will reduce Council waste management expenses by almost 60 million dollars a year - that means a substantial saving for every Council ratepayer.
The scheme will also raise up to $90 million dollars for the Federal Government that can be spent on environmental initiatives and create 2,600 new green jobs at a time of recession.'
Jeff Angel, the director of the Total Environment Centre, has stated, 'This is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. The latest economic analysis commissioned by Australia's environment ministers found that the cost of beverages could rise by half a cent a container. And that was by a study we think inflated the costs of a scheme and undervalued the benefits.'
5. Deposit and refund schemes are used all over the world
There are many countries that effectively implemented deposit and refund schemes.
Many provinces in Canada have deposit refund systems in place for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers: glass, plastic, aluminum, and tetrapak containers have deposit requirements in various provinces. Deposits range from 5› to 40› per unit.
In Germany container deposit legislation, known as Pfand or Einwegpfand (single-use deposit), was passed in 2002, and was implemented on 1 January 2003. The deposit legislation does not cover containers for fruit juice, wine, spirits, liquors, and certain dietary drinks. The standard deposit for single-use containers (cans, single-use glass and plastic bottles) is ? 0.25
In The Netherlands, PET soda bottles carry a 25-cent deposit. Glass beer bottles carry a 10-cent deposit with a further 1,50 euro deposit for the plastic crate.
In Denmark the selling of aluminium beverage cans was forbidden between 1982 and 2002. However this regulation violated European Union law. Therefore the EU forced Denmark to replace it, and the new legislation, passed in 2002, was in fact a container deposit legislation. It established the following container deposits:
Refillable glass bottles up to and incl. 0.5 litre: 1.00 DKK
Refillable glass bottles over 0.5 litre: 3.00 DKK
Cans, glass and plastic bottles under 1 litre: 1.00 DKK
Exception: Plastic bottles of 0.5 litre: 1.50 DKK
Cans, glass and plastic bottles of 1 litre and over: 3.00 DKK
As in Denmark, the selling of aluminium beverage cans was forbidden in Norway up until the end of the 20th century. In 1999 a container deposit legislation was passed, which also abolished this regulation. Today, there are the following container deposits in Norway:
Cans, glass and plastic bottles up to 0.5 litre: 1.00 NOK
Cans, glass and plastic bottles over 0.5 litre: 2.50 NOK
Bottle crates are also reverse vended.
In Sweden, there are deposits on nearly all containers for consumption-ready beverages. Of the aluminium cans and PET bottles , 86% are returned. The return rates for two glass bottle types are 99% and 90% respectively.
6. Recycling is a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
It has been claimed that recycling our containers could make a significant contribution toward reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2008, Australians for Refunds on Cans and Bottles made the following statements in a submission the group made to the Australian Federal Parliament,'The most compelling reason why Australia should introduce a national container deposit is because of the very large reductions in C02 emissions that could be achieved. This assertion is based on the 2007 report of the Stakeholders Advisory Group which investigated a best practice container deposit system for Western Australia. It concluded that a container deposit system in WA "would reduce C02 emissions there by tens of thousands of tonnes per year". It also said "it would save millions of litres of water".
Given the challenges posed by global warming and climate change we do not believe Australia can afford to ignore either of these benefits. Moreover, the Australian Government should be doing everything it can to reduce our emissions.'