Returning cans and plastic bottles

Leo said:
Don't you also generally have council collection points in urban areas in close proximity to shops with longer opening hours?
Click to expand...
When it comes to Mayo, there are collection points for stuff near Newport and Ballina, both in the middle of nowhere. That is all. This not an option.
 
Forumuser said:
Re-turn into public ownership? Great idea!
The scheme is certainly suffering form teething problems. I noticed umpteen times machines being out of operations. In one shop I developed the habit of going straight into the managers office to point that out- just to get on his nerves.
As I said- this scheme is around for donkeys years in many countries- with and without kerbside collection.
Putting machines into council collection points? Good idea. But that would mean you need to pay people- aka council workers- who take care of those machines. And you need sheltered places to set up the machines- an open council yard won't do.
Click to expand...
'This' scheme is not. Some form of this scheme is.
We've no excuse for teething problems, precisely because we can see the examples of those other countries.
Very deliberate decisions were taken around exemptions, manual returns - despite those examples.
You shouldn't have to hassle the manager, that should have been in the scheme regulations, and enforced.

The council operation of the machine would be funded just as the retail ones are funded, they get a certain rate per item.
If it is so important to bring in this scheme to meet EU targets, so we don't get fined... to not involve bulk collections at council sites (e.g. by charities, sports groups) is inexcusable.
 
The Government can't pretend the loss of revenue to the waste companies is a surprise to them.
Submission as part of the public consultation from Repak to the Dept of the Environment, November 2020:

"The general view of the waste industryis DRS is a significant threat to their businesses. A hybrid model could alleviate some of the concerns which the waste industry has in relation to the perceived negatlve impact,which DRS may have, on the current kerbside collection system.
At any rate the hybrid model would, minimise lost revenue to the waste industry and provide an alternative service provision which the waste industry could provide and receive the financial reward."

Further evidence the 'consultation' was no such thing.
 
This whole scheme has been badly thought out. How many 1 litre or 2 litre plastic bottles litter our streets ? I dont believe I have ever seen even one and yet these are the volumes mainly used for home consumption. I'm OK with smaller plastic bottles (<=500ml) and cans being included in the scheme but large bottles ? Why ? Surely >90% were already going into the green bin and keeping the waste companies profitable.
 
Flybytheseat said:
This whole scheme has been badly thought out. How many 1 litre or 2 litre plastic bottles litter our streets ? I dont believe I have ever seen even one and yet these are the volumes mainly used for home consumption. I'm OK with smaller plastic bottles (<=500ml) and cans being included in the scheme but large bottles ? Why ? Surely >90% were already going into the green bin and keeping the waste companies profitable.
Click to expand...
It's not just about littering which is thankfully relatively rare. Many people just throw everything into the general waste bin which goes to landfill. This scheme aims to nudge them to return the bottles so they can be recycled.
 
arbitron said:
It's not just about littering which is thankfully relatively rare. Many people just throw everything into the general waste bin which goes to landfill. This scheme aims to nudge them to return the bottles so they can be recycled.
Click to expand...
Surely there is a better way to stop this happening than enforcing unnecessary environmentally damaging car trips on the the 90% of the compliant public not to mention higher waste collection charges etc. I think the green agenda people need to use their brains as in this case common sense is clearly devoid. I don't recall ever hearing a public service communication / advert campaign encouraging people not to throw 1 Litre and 2 Litre bottles into their black bins !
 
Last edited:
Flybytheseat said:
Surely there is a better way to stop this happening than enforcing unnecessary environmentally damaging car trips on the the 90% of the compliant public not to mention higher waste collection charges etc.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Leo said:
How is that evidence? Do you have the meeting minutes where that was discussed?
Click to expand...
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:
odyssey06 said:
What's the point of a consultation, in which such feedback is disregarded?

So yes it is evidence. It was a sham consultation,
Click to expand...
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?
 
Leo said:
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?
Click to expand...
No point in discussing this further with you or putting forward arguments as you're clearly evangelical on this and not open to other valid points of view.
 
Leo said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Flybytheseat said:
No point in discussing this further with you or putting forward arguments as you're clearly evangelical on this and not open to other valid points of view.
Click to expand...
I've clearly said earlier that I don't like the scheme. Part of me here is playing devil's advocate and asking those who feel the scheme should be scrapped what they propose as a better solution, but mostly I acknowledge that the previous model was failing miserably and this model has proven to be highly successful in other countries, and that I'm not aware of an alternative model in use elsewhere that has solved the problem.

I'd suggest there's no point in you contributing if you are seriously putting forward the position that everyone is driving to the collection points solely to drop off items then getting straight back in their cars and driving home!
 
odyssey06 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Leo said:
I've clearly said earlier that I don't like the scheme. Part of me here is playing devil's advocate and asking those who feel the scheme should be scrapped what they propose as a better solution, but mostly I acknowledge that the previous model was failing miserably and this model has proven to be highly successful in other countries, and that I'm not aware of an alternative model in use elsewhere that has solved the problem.

I'd suggest there's no point in you contributing if you are seriously putting forward the position that everyone is driving to the collection points solely to drop off items then getting straight back in their cars and driving home!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
AndroidMan said:
I saw a bin truck with the Return branding on, it looks like it is purely for the collection from the reverse vending machine locations.

Is it really the case that even more gas-guzzling highly polluting vehicles are required for this environment improvement initiative ??
Click to expand...
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.
 
beautfan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top