Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window



Related issue outlines:
2008/14: Should plastic bags be banned?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
plastic
bottle

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
2009/21: Should Australia introduce a nation-wide container deposit and refund scheme to reduce littering?<BR>

2009/21: Should Australia introduce a nation-wide container deposit and refund scheme to reduce littering?

What they said...
'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'
Mr Jeff Angel, the Total Environment Centre

'Kerbside recycling has excellent coverage in Australia. Imposing a deposit on containers will result in households not putting such containers in their kerbside recycling bins'
Transpacific Industries Group

The issue at a glance
On November 5. 2009, Australia's state and federal environment ministers met in Perth, Western Australia, to discuss a number of proposals.  One of these was whether an Australia-wide scheme requiring consumers to pay deposits on containers should be introduced.  This is similar to a scheme currently operating in Adelaide, which allows consumers to claim a 10 cent refund when they return soft drink bottles to a collection point.
The environment ministers did not immediately accept the scheme.  On November 6 it was announced. 'Ministers are keenly awaiting the results of the final report, to assist them to make an evidence-based decision on what action to take on the community's desire to recycle more packaging and reduce litter. If a sufficient willingness to pay is demonstrated by the community, through the report findings, the next step would be to compare this against the cost of a range of options ..."
The issue remains hotly debated with many conservation groups and others supporting the introduction of a deposit and refund scheme, while a group of manufacturing lobbyists and others oppose it.

Background
(Much of the following information is abridged from the Wikipedia entry titled, 'Container-deposit legislation.  The entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container-deposit_legislation
The information regarding the Australian Northern Territory can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/01/2557860.htm http://www.cashforcontainers.nt.gov.au/ and http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/12/2740901.htm

Container deposit legislation is laws passed by city, state, provincial, or national governments that require that a deposit on carbonated, milk, water or alcoholic beverage containers be collected when the beverage is sold. When the container is returned to an authorised redemption center, or the original seller in some jurisdictions, the deposit is partially or completely refunded to the consumer.

Governments may pass container deposit legislation for several reasons:
a)  to encourage recycling and complement existing kerbside recycling programs;
b)  to specifically reduce beverage container litter along highways, in lakes and rivers, and on other public or private properties (where beverage container litter occurs, a nominal deposit provides an economic incentive to clean it up; this is in fact a significant source of income to some homeless individuals and non-profit civic organizations);
c)  to extend the usable lifetime of taxpayer-supported community or regional landfills, and;
d)  to protect children by effectively reducing the incidence of glass lacerations in childhood.

Deposits that are not redeemed are often used by the governmental entity involved to fund environmental programs; sometimes they are used to cover the costs of processing returned containers.

Container deposit schemes in the United States and other jurisdictions
In the United States, these laws are also popularly called bottle bills after the Oregon Bottle Bill, the first container deposit legislation passed in the U.S.
Efforts to pass container deposit legislation in the 39 states that do not have them are often politically contentious. The U.S. beverage container industry - including both the bottlers of water, soda, beer, and the corporate owners of grocery stores, and convenience stores - spends large amounts of money lobbying against the introduction of both new and amended beverage container deposit legislation.
Among other nations which have some form of container deposit scheme are Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Container deposit laws in Australia
South Australia currently has a refund of 10 cents per can or bottle[25] (raised from 5 cents in late 2008). In the 1970s deposits ranged from 20c for a 30 oz bottle and 10c for a 10 oz and 6 1/2 oz bottle. With the introduction of plastic and non re-usable bottles the deposit was reduced to 5c (including aluminium cans). This amount remained unchanged for around thirty years.
A recent innovation has seen the deposit extended to paper cartons eg. flavoured milk and orange juice. The Beverage Container Act 1975 (SA) governs the levying and refund of deposits. The value of deposits and the scope of their application have been influenced by the Australian federal constitution's guarantee of free trade between the states.
Victoria had a scheme, but it was rescinded. In 2009, Victorian Greens introduced a private member's bill for a 10c deposit scheme which passed the upper house and was ruled out of order on a second reading in the lower house due to a technicality.
A national scheme has also been proposed. Attempts to introduce similar legislation in other states have been unsuccessful to date.
In May 2009 the Northern Territory trialled its 'cash for containers' scheme at the Freds Pass Show. Empty drink containers purchased at the show were able to be cashed in for a refund of 10 cents each. Soft drink cans, flavoured milk cartons and fruit juice bottles were all redeemable.
The Northern Territory government intends to implement such a scheme across the Territory in 2011.
On November 12, 2009, it was announced that the Northern Territory government was redrafting its container deposit legislation to avoid a legal challenge anticipated from the food and grocery industry.
Some Australian communities and municipalities have decided to act independently. Port Hedland in Western Australia recently introduced its own beverage container refund scheme, giving local residents a 10 cent refund on their cans and bottles, and Bundanoon in NSW introduced a town-wide ban on bottled water in order to cut down their environmental footprint.

Internet information
The South Australian Government has published an information booklet outlining the history, operation and effectiveness of its container deposit scheme. The booklet promotes the success of the scheme. The full text of the booklet can be found at http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/Content/Uploaded/Generic/Documents/pdf/factsheets/container_deposit_legislation.pdf

On June 26, 2008, the ABC's 7.30 Report televised a report titled, 'SA ahead of the rest on recycling'. The report presents arguments both for and against container deposit schemes.  The full text of the report can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2287158.htm

On September 25, 2008, the Total Environment Centre published a report titled, 'Litter Study Highlights Need for Container Deposits, Shames Coca-Cola'
Though it is presented as a news item, the report presents only one side of the issue, giving the results of the The Keep Australia Beautiful Branded Litter Study which appears to support the container deposit scheme currently operating in South Australia.  
The full text of the report can be found at http://www.tec.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=704:litter-study-highlights-need-for-container-deposits-shames-coca-cola&catid=51&Itemid=270

On September 17, 2009, the Senate released a report relevant to the Environment Protection (Beverage Container Deposit and Recovery Scheme) Bill 2009
The full text of the report, presenting arguments for and against the scheme, can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/environment_protect_09/report/report.pdf

On September 18, 2009,  Packaging, an Australian packaging news and solutions Internet site, ran a report titled, 'CDL not a simple or cheap option for Australia'.  Though presented as a news report, the article presents only one side of the issue, outlining a number of shortcomings in container deposit legislation.
The full text of the item can be found at http://www.packagingmag.com.au/Article/CDL-not-a-simple-or-cheap-option-for-Australia/498878.aspx

On October 28, 2009, The Business Spectator published a report titled, 'Beverage giants claim container rebate will cost industry $500m'.  The full text of the report can be found at http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Beverage-giants-claim-container-rebate-will-cost-i-pd20091028-X8Q8J?OpenDocument

On October 30, 2009, The Sydney Morning Herald published an editorial titled, 'A few cents extra makes a lot of recycling happen'.  The editorial argues in favour of a national container deposit scheme.  The full text of the editorial can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/the-government-keeps-stumbling-on-drinking-barns-20091030-hnx6.html

On October 31, 2009, The Courier Mail published a series of readers' comments in response to a news item titled, 'Recycling to inflate beer cost'.  These comments can be found at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,26285822-952,00.html

On November 1, 2009, The Sunday Telegraph published a news report titled, 'Recycling refund will hike beer price'.  The report outlines the intent of a number of beverage manufacturers to pass on to consumers the costs associated with any national container deposit scheme.  The full text of article can be found at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/money-matters/recycling-refund-will-hike-beer-price/story-fn300aev-1225793208066

On November 5, 2009, an opinion piece by Ian Kiernan was published on the ABC's 'Unleashed' opinion forum.  The opinion piece is titled, 'Beyond a joke'.  It presents a series of arguments in support of Australia-wide container deposit legislation.  The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2733914.htm

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.'

Arguments against a container deposit and refund scheme
1.  It will increase the cost of products
It has been argued that requiring consumers to pay a deposit on cans and bottles will increase the cost of many packaged goods.
Australian Food and Grocery Council Chief Executive, Kate Carnell, has said  that introducing container deposit systems would mean that consumers would have to pay more for their products.'
Ms Carnell has further claimed, 'It's not just the deposit that would add costs there's also the handling fees. Based on a 10 cent deposit and a four cent handling fee, the cost of a carton of beer would increase by $4 to $5.'
Ms Carnell has further stated, 'Environment Minsters must once and for all reject the expensive CDL (container deposit levy) scheme which we believe will cost Australians a whopping $500 million a year compared to the current affordable and effective model.'
EPA Victoria recently released an analysis of the cost of running a container deposit system in parallel with kerbside recycling which found that such a system nationally would cost around $1 billion per year.
The study, conducted on behalf of the EPA by Nolan-ITU, showed that the introduction of a deposit system would result in the retail cost of beverages rising between 13.4 and 14.6 cents per pack. This would result in increases in household expenditure of between $181 and $219 per annum, which would be slightly offset by a reduction in recycling costs.
Taking all factors into account, the study found the net average cost per household would be $157 per annum, which, if implemented nationally, would result in the annual cost of $1 billion to be carried by the nation's households. The EPA study assumed a 10 cent deposit and the return of containers to retailers. The policy paper was peer reviewed by Perchards, a London-based consultancy, which agreed with the cost findings.

2.  A container deposit and refund scheme may actually increase littering
It has been argued that a container deposit scheme may actually increase the consumer's readiness to litter.
The Keep Australia Beautiful Council of New South Wales has claimed that there is evidence to suggest that littering behaviour is actually negatively affected by Container Deposit Legislation as consumers can be 'swayed into believing that since they have been charged a deposit for the container, then they have a right to litter and leave it for someone else to clean it up'.
Those who hold this view argue that a deposit scheme could actually undermine efforts to educate the public to dispose of litter thoughtfully.  If the issue ceases to be one of community responsibility and becomes one of simple economics, then consumers may feel under no obligation to behave in an environmentally sensitive manner.

3.  A deposit and refund scheme is not necessary
It has been claimed that there are a variety of other means that can be used to encourage responsible waste disposal.  One of these is simply the ready availability of waste disposal facilities.
The packaging Council of New Zealand has noted, 'Today over 95% of New Zealanders have access to facilities to recycle packaging, that is, paper, glass, cans and plastics 1 and 2.  Seventy-seven percent of New Zealand councils offer households a kerbside recycling service.  Beverage containers can therefore be easily recycled, which makes a container deposit system unnecessary.'
The Transpacific Industries Group made the following claim in a submission to a 2009 Senate Committee, 'Kerbside recycling has excellent coverage in Australia. Imposing a deposit on containers will result in households not putting such containers in their kerbside recycling bins. The cost of kerbside recyclable collection and processing will stay the same; however, the economics will be undermined by removing potentially high value commodities. Depending on the nature of the contracts between Councils and their kerbside recyclables collector/processor, one or both parties will be significantly impacted financially; such new legislation would lead to commercial disputes on who will bear the cost. Kerbside recycling performs very well (and its coverage is continually expanding) and there is simply no problem that needs to be solved with containers from households.'

4.  It will expensive to establish and not cost-effective
It has been noted that establishing such a system would involve significant initial costs.
A report completed in May by BDA Group and Wright Corporate Strategy found a national container deposit scheme would be relatively expensive at about $492 million a year, with cost-effectiveness of $1500 an additional tonne recycled.
According to the recent BDA report, the primary costs of a container deposit scheme are:
a) system operating costs (including the capital costs of establishing collection centres and costs of container handling, transport and administration),
b) costs of commercial collection and
c) the inconvenience costs associated with redemption of deposits.
The report concludes a container deposit scheme could result in a 6 per cent reduction in litter, or 19 per cent by volume, greater than any other new recycling options. However, it adds the high associated costs may make the scheme economically undesirable.
The BDA and Wright report estimates kerbside collection recovers about 78 per cent of beverage containers in Australia at a cost of $300 a tonne, while SA's container deposit scheme recovers 6 per cent of the national total at close to double the cost a tonne.
Dick Wells, Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) chief executive, has said that a national  container deposit legislation scheme would cost Australian consumers at least $400 million every year in addition to the $1 billion in deposits they would have to pay up front at the check-out.
Mr Wells stated, 'Calls for extra costs are out of step with the community when they are already paying for kerbside recycling through their council rates.'

5.  There are other means of encouraging responsible litter disposal
It has been argued that there are a variety of other means to bring about a reduction in the amount of container litter.
Australian Food and Grocery Council Chief Executive, Kate Carnell, has said 'The AFGC through the Packaging Stewardship Forum is already working on improving recycling from workplaces, the hospitality sector and shopping centres. With the National Packaging Covenant (NPC), we have a range of projects are underway to recycle an extra 60,000 tonnes of packaging each year and that includes beverage containers.'
Ms Carnell has explained that the AFGC is a signatory to the NPC, which is supported by industry and all levels of government to reduce the environmental impact of packaging waste. The NPC has made significant progress towards meeting the 65 per cent packaging recycling rate target by 2010.
The AFG has further claimed that the National Packaging Covenant - which has been operating for the past 10 years - has the capacity to divert an additional 500,000 tonnes of packaging from landfill each year.
Coca-Cola Amatil Managing Director of Australia, Warwick White, believes that the National Packaging Covenant is working and any changes will prove costly to business and  actually divert it from its efforts to encourage recycling by other means.
Mr White has claimed, 'Australian companies want to be focussing on investing in innovative solutions for environmental problems, not suffering huge additional costs from a 1970s regulatory approach.'
The 2006 Productivity Commission Report No. 38 on Waste Management found, 'Deposit-refund schemes are typically costly and would only be justified for products that have a very high cost of illegal disposal. Container deposit legislation is unlikely to be the most cost-effective mechanism for achieving its objectives of recovering resources and reducing litter.
Kerbside recycling is a less costly option for recovering resources, while general anti-litter programs are likely to be a more cost-effective way of pursuing overall litter reduction.'
Jennifer Pickles of the Australian Food and Grocery Council has stated, 'Holistic approaches to the management of packaging waste can work better, and that evidence of Victoria's recycling rates being significantly greater across the whole packaging stream bears that out. The industry supports holistic approaches to how we manage our packaging waste, rather than narrow approaches such as container deposits.'

6.  It will decrease the returns from kerbside litter collection and increase litter collection costs for municipal councils
The garbage collection and recycling industry is concerned that the economics of the kerbside system will be undermined by the removal of high value recycling items.
Veolia Environmental Services, Transpacific Industries Group and the Waste Contractors and Recyclers Association of New South Wales have all argued that the imposition of a deposit on beverage containers would cause households to stop placing beverage containers in their kerbside recycling bins (currently around 25 percent of kerbside recyclables are containers) in favour of redeeming the deposit.
This would mean that high value commodities like aluminium would be removed from the system despite the cost of collection remaining unchanged.
Municipal councils pay contractors a fee per tonne to sort and process recyclables from kerbside collection. The more the council collects, the more it pays for that component of the contract. However, contractors use the income from the sale of the recyclables to offset the operational costs and therefore offer council a competitive net price to receive and sort the recyclables.
If households reduce the amount of valuable recyclables they put out for kerbside collection then the cost of collection to councils and thus ratepayers is likely to rise. It is also possible that collections might occur less regularly because councils would no longer be able to afford to fund them at the current rate.

Further implications
The BDA and Wright report estimates kerbside collection recovers about 78 per cent of beverage containers in Australia at a cost of $300 a tonne, while SA's container deposit scheme recovers 6 per cent of the national total at close to double the cost a tonne.  
These figures are somewhat misleading as one of the main areas of concern is not containers of drinks consumed within the home, but those that are drunk away from home and left as litter.  
Clean Up Australia Day data indicates that South Australia does far better at reducing roadside litter than other states.  The difficulty is that it is not possible to institute a deposit scheme that applies only to beverages drunk outside the home.  
We are in a situation where we have a very efficient kerbside collection scheme operating in most states which collects a high percentage of the containers of drinks consumed within the home but not those consumed elsewhere. As a society we have to decide whether we are prepared to pay for a relatively expensive container deposit scheme to remove that proportion of container litter currently not being disposed of responsibly.  
A number of surveys have indicated that Australian consumers are willing to pay the additional costs associated with removing container litter from our roadsides, waterways and beaches.  It is an unfortunate irony that deposits may make our kerbside collection more expensive.  Again, however, this would appear to be a cost most ratepayers are prepared to meet.  This may be one of a number of environmental issues where the electorate is ready to support pro-active policies while their governments are more cautious.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age:  October 7, page 12, news item by Adam Morton, `State's rubbish heap becoming a mountain'.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/states-rubbish-heap-becoming-a-mountain-20091006-glh6.html

The Australian, October 2, page 14, comment by Henry Ergas, `Bottled water is harmless, unlike bad economics'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/bad-economics-not-harmless/story-e6frg6zo-1225781825542

The Age: October 30, page 14, editorial, `A few cents extra makes a lot of recycling happen'. (When you link to the online version, you will need to scroll down to the SECOND editorial on the page)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/the-government-keeps-stumbling-on-drinking-barns-20091030-hnx6.html

The Age: October 30, page 3, news item by Tom Arup, `Victoria to reject 10-cent bottle recycling scheme'.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/victoria-to-reject-10cent-bottle-recycling-20091029-hnpe.html