Are you suggesting the majority of people are driving for the sole purpose of returning plastic bottles to a ReTurn point and then simply heading home again with the refund printout in their pockets?
Returning cans and plastic bottles
- Thread starter someCitizen
- Start date
What's the point of a consultation, in which such feedback is disregarded?
So yes it is evidence. It was a sham consultation, as the vast vast majority of them are, to come to a pre-ordained conclusion, where only feedback from certain sources are paid any heed to. They are not in any genuine sense a consultation process.
If you have evidence to the contrary, showing how these 'consultations' are generally run in a fair and open manner, where feedback from across the range of submissions including from ordinary citizens are seriously considered and addressed in a meaningful manner - do share.
And if it is such an open and transparent consultation, where are those minutes?
Last edited:
There are a multitude of reasons why that suggestion may have been disregarded. Your opinion is not proof that consultation didn't occur.
Repak's own submissions acknowledge that consideration was given to the hybrid model they favoured (it wasn't their suggestion), they went into detail on the elements they considered made it preferable.
Perhaps their failure on meeting prior targets meant there was little confidence they could make that model work?
It is more than opinion, it is a reasonable basis to assert it.
Where's the minutes of the meetings?
If these are proper public consultations, where is the transparency of how the final shape of the scheme was arrived it?
They don't get the benefit of the doubt, and such feedback justifies withholding it.
This feedback is coming from multiple sources with standing, it is not the equivalent of a letter to the Irish Times
If it was a proper consultation, and the feedback gave were alerted to the impact this would have on existing refuse collection, and they disregarded it, that is unjustifiable.
Nowhere in the requirements of the Re-turn scheme does it give them scope to impact and undermine kerbside refuse collection. Which includes compost and other recyclables. In introducing a new model, they are undermining another model which has far more responsibilities.
What would that do to other targets we have committed to such as landfill diversion?
It clearly speaks to this being a pre-ordained decision which by hook or by crook was going to be brought in on a certain timeline.
And that clearly speaks to this being a sham consultation.
How so? The fact that household collection costs would likely increase isn't a reason for the scheme not to proceed. What's the cost of the alternative? Other countries have managed. You're falling for the moaning of vested interests, many of whom were reporting very healthy increasing profits with no sign of passing on reductions to consumers.
I never knew so many people cared about the profitability of bin companies! I'm starting to think this thread is populated by pandas and greyhounds.
If I had 15 cent for every time "alternative options" were mentioned in this thread but never expanded upon, I'd nearly be as rich as I am under the re-turn scheme.
If I had 15 cent for every time "alternative options" were mentioned in this thread but never expanded upon, I'd nearly be as rich as I am under the re-turn scheme.
I heard on Pat Kenny or Claire Byrne a company in Limerick have the contract to collect them.
How do you expect the cans and bottles to be collected if it isn't a big truck.
AndroidMan
Registered User
- Messages
- 441
I thought Tesco just put them in their green bin / landfill!
So what was wrong with the other big truck that used to collect the same bottles from my own bin outside my house?
That still comes every fortnight like clockwork even if I dont even put the bin out, as it is less full now and goes out less frequently.
This new process has hardly eliminated any truck emmissions has it.
The cans and bottles are put in big orange bins. Well that's where there are put in my local centra. I go there because the machine so far always works.I thought Tesco just put them in their green bin / landfill!
So what was wrong with the other big truck that used to collect the same bottles from my own bin outside my house?
That still comes every fortnight like clockwork even if I dont even put the bin out, as it is less full now and goes out less frequently.
This new process has hardly eliminated any truck emmissions has it.
I tried my local dunnes and the cans kept coming back.
After that shameful experience I decided to try the Centra on the way home and all cans were taken.
I still go to Dunnes and the 2 machines, which is no where near enough for the volume is often being worked on by staff.
Why we needed separate trucks is a good point. But based on listening to the re turn guy I'm not surprised. The implementation of the scheme seems, makey up as you go alongy as it will be alright in the end. In the meantime pay a PR company to give us nice messages about how great us irish are putting all the cans and bottles into machines so that we get back money we're entitled to.
It wasn't working, recycling rates were way below targets and dropping.
Interesting to see that the success of the same scheme in Germany is now seeing a consumer led demand for expansion to other containers.
Last edited:
Re-turn is a "vested interest", as are the retailers who demanded damaging changes to the scheme, such as the increase in exemption size.
Where are the figures for the collection rate of the items in scope of the scheme?
So whose 'moaning' have you 'fallen for'?
Other countries didn't have our refuse collection system in place when rolling out Re-turn. It would be a problem for central and local government though regardless.
Talk about profits is complete red herring. If collections were run by council and eg funded by LPT, there would still be €15 million shortfall in the funding of that operation because of the diversion to fund Re-turn. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The monies from the sale of the recyclables is so significant it is listed as a specific category in the funding by Re-turn. We are talking considerable sums here, it is not small change, it is not an invention by the waste companies that it is a considerable sum lost.
There is no remit for this scheme to undermine kerbside refuse collection as they have done, with impact this may have on other targets we have committed to.
The fact that the scheme was rolled out without any plan in place is just proof it was a sham consultation, and a pre-ordained decision.
Zero regard for its actual impact across the whole sector of waste and recyclables.
Jobs for the boys in Re-turn, wa-hey.
Perhaps you're asking the wrong people. I presume you've looked at Eurostat who report these metrics for all EU states?
I've seen a 60% collection figure, but it is not clear how that was arrived at, specifically are they talking about all plastics (which is a broad category including plastic wrap to shampoo bottles), or beverage bottles only.
The figures quotes by Re-turn \ government in discussions of this scheme are similarly vague.
Everyone is a vested interest here.
Are you sure about that? Even if it were true, our collection system has an appalling record, are you suggesting we should have stuck blindly to a system whose performance was deteriorating in the hopes of a miracle?
Clearly, that's why the waste companies are moaning. The industry has a history of such histrionics and warnings of dire price hikes to come. That's what industry lobbyists do to try and improve the lot of their members. Repak are in no way, shape, or form a consumer advocacy body. Their goal is to enable their members extract as much money from consumers as possible. And I'm saying that as someone with family in the waste business.
The scheme is designed to address a failing system. The criteria didn't specify that waste companies should continue coining it.
The targets are set on packaging, as defined in directive 94/62/EC. The methodology is published, most have explainer notes as well (example)
I specifically addressed this point:
Talk about profits is complete red herring. If collections were run by council and eg funded by LPT, there would still be €15 million shortfall in the funding of that operation because of the diversion to fund Re-turn. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The monies from the sale of the recyclables is so significant it is listed as a specific category in the funding by Re-turn. We are talking considerable sums here, it is not small change, it is not an invention by the waste companies that it is a considerable sum lost.
If there is doubt as to whether it is a considerable sum, the Government should ask Re-turn to clarify what its expected income is over the coming years from the sale of recyclables. Re-turn are "coining it" to use your language, and also to demonstrate how irrelevant a point it is.
The reality is that it is clear Re-turn will have impact on price of waste collection services, without intervention of some sort by Government.
Don't you think a consumer advocacy group would have said the same thing about impact on consumer prices? Thereby again demonstrating the irrelevance of your attempted demonisation of waste companies.
This may also lead to more dumping and impact other waste collection and landfill diversion targets we have signed up to.
This was flagged to the Government by a body with standing in the public consultation. It is not seriously in dispute that a significant sum of funding has been removed from the waste collection system to fund Re-turn. It is stated clearly in Re-turn's funding setup.
The government concealed this, took no steps to address it, did not disclose this in discussions about the scheme.
It was dishonest as a lie of omission and demonstrates the consultation to be a sham.
Are they, have they posted a profit yet? If it turns out they do start making significant profits, then there should be lots of competition when their license renewal comes up. The government also retain the authority to licence other operator.
It was always expected to have an impact, what isn't clear is the scale of that impact. Even the waste industry themselves haven't suggested what the consumer impact might be yet and they've known about this for years.
Don't you not think ever increasing pollution and the prospect of significant fines are consumer issues?
How so? Are people who recycled responsibly up to this point going to start disposing of plastics on the street as a form of dirty protest? The reality is actually the opposite, IBAL are already reporting the positive impact of the scheme, noting significantly reduced littler levels since the introduction of the scheme. Overall litter levels rose in 2023, but they have noted a 30% drop in plastic and can litter since the scheme was introduced.
People who had been paying for waste collection service as a whole, because of the increased prices, cancel the service.
So instead the stuff will end up burned, or dumped or stuffed into overflowing public refuse bins.
This is already happening.
The Re-turn items may end up in the proper place, but not the rest.
By the standard set in your post, they are also consumer issues.
"It was always expected to have an impact"
Was it?
Where is that listed in the things people should consider during the public consultation about the scheme?
If it was known, and not declared, that proves the dishonest basis on which it was run.
The truth is this was a pre-ordained decision. They didn't care if waste collection prices went up. They didn't care if consumer groups objected to the scheme on that basis. The scheme was coming in, by hook or by crook.
I don't see any benefit to society by setting policy based on the idea of keeping this cohort happy.
By all means increase resources to tracking down fly tippers and increase the fines.
The crux of the issue is not price but the quantity of waste. The ultimate aim in order of importance is reduce, reuse recycle. We've gotten hung up here on the last point. Higher bin charges might help with the first two points.
While there is a balance to be struck between what's fair and equitable across society, ultimately the polluter has to pay or what hope of meaningful change.