Returning cans and plastic bottles

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 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.
 
Flybytheseat said:
I'm fairly sure come quarter 4 of this year the electorate will be waiting in the long grass only too keen to kick the greens into oblivion.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you think that will achieve, the mandate and targets are set at a European level, all the major party groups voted in favour. This isn't some small number of Green TDs in Ireland wagging the European dog's tail.

It amazes me how many people seem to believe that eliminating the Greens will have such an impact when things like this scheme were in the works while they were in opposition!
 
AndroidMan said:
So what was wrong with the other big truck that used to collect the same bottles from my own bin outside my house?
Click to expand...
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:
Leo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have asked for the actual figure on recycling rates on the items in scope of this scheme, and none have been provided.
I have searched online... nada.
I have seen vague references to 'plastics' in general.
 
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.
 
odyssey06 said:
I have asked for the actual figure on recycling rates on the items in scope of this scheme, and none have been provided.
I have searched online... nada.
have seen vague references to 'plastics' in general.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're asking the wrong people. I presume you've looked at Eurostat who report these metrics for all EU states?
 
Leo said:
Perhaps you're asking the wrong people. I presume you've looked at Eurostat who report these metrics for all EU states?
Click to expand...
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.
 
odyssey06 said:
Re-turn is a vested interest, as are the retailers who demanded damaging changes to the scheme, such as the increase in exemption size.
Click to expand...
Everyone is a vested interest here.

odyssey06 said:
Other countries didn't have our refuse collection system in place when rolling out Re-turn.
Click to expand...
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.

odyssey06 said:
There is no remit for this scheme to undermine kerbside refuse collection as they have done.
Click to expand...
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.
 
odyssey06 said:
Re-turn are "coining it" to use your language, and also to demonstrate how irrelevant a point it is.
Click to expand...
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.

odyssey06 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


odyssey06 said:
Don't you think a consumer advocacy group would have said the same thing about impact on consumer prices?
Click to expand...
Don't you not think ever increasing pollution and the prospect of significant fines are consumer issues?


odyssey06 said:
This may also lead to more dumping and impact other waste collection and landfill diversion targets we have signed up to.
Click to expand...
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.
 
odyssey06 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
odyssey06 said:
People who had been paying for waste collection service as a whole, because of the increased prices, cancel the service.
Click to expand...
Can you point to evidence of that? What waste providers have increased costs? So far all I've heard are Repak warning that increased charges would come, just like they did when they were obliged to make composting bins available to all customers.

If people are cancelling waste collection services then what are they doing? Without a registered waste collector, people are subject to inspection and are obliged t provide evidence of appropriate disposal. With litter levels dropping significantly since the scheme came in, it would suggest that whatever they are now doing is somehow much more effective than the collection option.

odyssey06 said:
"It was always expected to have an impact"
Was it?
Click to expand...
Of course, it has in other countries, why not here? The consultation process also included submissions calling this out as a negative to the model they chose to go with.

odyssey06 said:
They didn't care if consumer groups objected to the scheme on that basis. The scheme was coming in, by hook or by crook.
Click to expand...
Something had to be done to address a failing system. What is your proposal for an alternative?
 
I was addressing the previous points. Whether they are happy or not is beside the point. It is how people respond to higher bin charges and if you don't think it will lead to some people cancelling and improperly disposing of rubbish, you're not paying attention to Ireland 2024.
In urban areas I have seen household waste bags being put in public bins. Neighbours who put out no bins and seem to be visited by seagulls at regular times.

The polluter doesn't pay if they are burning rubbish. Or dumping it in a ditch. Or a public refuse bin.
So higher bin charges aren't going to help, and may even have the opposite consequence.
The laws against such things are worth the paper they are written of, negligible enforcement here. Just as there's negligible enforcement of breaches of the Re-turn regulations.

The polluter doesn't pay when you have huge numbers of retailers, who are supplying the 'polluting' products, exempt from even having to take back the items properly.
Re-turn is not about reducing the quantity of waste. It is run by beverages companies and the very producers of the 'polluting' products.
Its funding is even based on a certain % of items not being returned, so they keep the deposit!

So "the polluter pays" is dubious in theory, and in practice backfires.
 
Last edited:
I have not noticed any dumped rubbish in my area for a number of years. There was no increase either since the reduction of the return scheme.
It is virtually impossible to use public refuse bins- they all got fitted with an extremely small opening to prevent people from using them for their own household rubbish.
Folks cancelling their rubbish collection still need to prove what service they are using to dispose their rubbish in a proper way- so your assumption is just that.
I did not notice any burning of rubbish either. And if it would happen, some neighbour would call the guards at once!
The polluter is the consumer. There is no other one involved. Not even the producer. Without the consumers the producers would have no market and would not produce.
Yes- the polluter is ME and YOU!

As I said- some people have huge difficulties to change and adapt to new realities....
 
Reactions: Leo
Forumuser said:
It is virtually impossible to use public refuse bins- they all got fitted with an extremely small opening to prevent people from using them for their own household rubbish.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the LA's have the authority to call to anyone who dumps an official waste collector and the householder must prove proper handling if waste or face a hefty fine. It's also an offence to dump household waste in a public bin, and people do occasionally get fined for that. I can't see people who are too lazy to bring a few containers with them when they're going to the shops going about making many more trips with small quantities of waste finding public bins to dump it in.

Time will tell what impact this scheme will have, Eurostat aren't going to skew the metrics to save anyone's blushes so we'll have evidence well before Re-Turn's license is up for renewal. I'm not aware of any waste suppliers having put up their prices despite knowing this was coming for years. So their representative body jumping on the negative press to further their cause is at best opportunist, at worst price signalling.
 
Bord na Mona significantly increased their pay per lift bin charges at the end of last year, the cost of lifting the recycling bin alone increased by 86% . It is now cheaper for us to pay a yearly flat fee for waste, recycling and the compost bin.

I could legitimately deal with waste without a bin collection as my local recycling centre accepts food waste for composting and there's a local garage that has one of those machines that you can pay per bin bag to dispose of rubbish.

Still annoys me that I'm being penalised for putting cans and plastic bottles in the recycling bin though.
 
demoivre said:
Still annoys me that I'm being penalised for putting cans and plastic bottles in the recycling bin though.
Click to expand...
Same, it's more hassle and while far from perfect I was reasonable good at separating and ensuring only the appropriate materials went in each bin. It's an unfortunate downside of living as part of a society, wee pay for the failings of others. Just as we pay higher insurance premiums because of a minority who steal and invent or exaggerate injuries seeking compensation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register