tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198133958305421175.post6624161939040982138..comments2023-06-14T09:07:05.435-05:00Comments on Ketan.org: deposit systemsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198133958305421175.post-51463961443529315352008-05-13T11:08:00.000-05:002008-05-13T11:08:00.000-05:00This isn't just about recycling; it's about litter...This isn't just about recycling; it's about litter, too.<BR/><BR/>I'd be ok with you throwing your cigarette butts in the trash. That means you're not throwing them on the street. And even if you do throw them on the street, someone will pick them up for you because there's a financial incentive to do so.<BR/><BR/>For fast food containers, we're probably better off encouraging the use of materials that can be recycled on the curb. Those might not be practical.<BR/><BR/>I don't see how it's free to do more curb-side recycling, especially with the need for sorting.<BR/><BR/>Nor do I see why you insist that people need to make separate trips to return these items; these are all things that people buy regularly, so they can bring them back when they get more.<BR/><BR/>Finally, it's not just about cigarette butts; what about fluorescent lights, batteries, and plastic bags?Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07866935562004916853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198133958305421175.post-46848779476712856962008-05-13T09:12:00.000-05:002008-05-13T09:12:00.000-05:00My example was deliberately a joke. Still, I'm no...My example was deliberately a joke. Still, I'm not going to store up a bunch of nasty smelling butts and fast food containers. And if they don't mean $.03 to me, I'm just going to throw them out. I'm not going to just give them to someone else to recycle. You're adding more confusion and process to a public that can't or won't deal with it.<BR/><BR/>How to pay for it? Please read my last paragraph again. The rest of the money would be charged as it is now: as an involuntary trash service.<BR/><BR/>The recycle bin sorting would by a lot less time, gas, money, and regulation for everyone.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09396223294042213468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198133958305421175.post-56695525244505503182008-05-08T16:25:00.000-05:002008-05-08T16:25:00.000-05:00Nobody has to bring this stuff back. You're perfe...Nobody has to bring this stuff back. You're perfectly free to relinquish the deposit. That gives someone the opportunity to earn money by collecting the deposit on your behalf.<BR/><BR/>If it takes you 30 minutes and a gallon of gas to buy cigarettes, I have no problem with you having to do the same thing to return the butts. But of course it won't work that way because you'll be going there to buy new cigarettes anyway. Or you'll save up until you have a dozen cartons worth of butts. Your example is unrealistic, to put it gently. Just out of curiosity, have you ever used a deposit system?<BR/><BR/>The programs would be funded by the deposits, not by taxes. Some part of the deposit would be kept back for the collection overhead. There would inevitably be some fraction of the products in question that don't get returned, so those deposit fees would be kept by the merchant in their entirety.<BR/><BR/>There's no general tax, just a slightly increased charge, and only for people who buy those products. Right now, those people (as a group) are shifting the costs of proper disposal onto the rest of us, either by the rest of us directly paying for litter pickup, or the indirect costs of environmental damage. We are incurring those costs right now. The idea is for those costs to be paid by the parties responsible for them, and to create a financial incentive for doing the right thing.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it doesn't make sense for everyone who sells those things to have to collect them; perhaps the requirement can be shifted into a financial incentive that retailers can take or ignore. That's certainly worth considering.<BR/><BR/>I question the value of these studies because I see too many people failing to do the right thing. People will throw cans into the trash when there is a recycle bin <B>right next to the trash can</B>. Also, nobody does curb-side pickup for fluorescent lights, batteries, or cigarette butts, nor does it make sense for them to.<BR/><BR/>Does it not cost money to collect recycling bins and to sort the contents? How do you propose paying for that if not a tax? Charge people disposal fees? That will further discourage doing the right thing.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07866935562004916853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198133958305421175.post-31094031797004837692008-05-08T13:50:00.000-05:002008-05-08T13:50:00.000-05:00I have to disagree. By forcing a deposit system, ...I have to disagree. By forcing a deposit system, you're increasing the amount of time and gas every single person has to expend running around the city find a place to bring all this stuff back. I'm not going to spend 30 minutes and a gallon of gas to get $.60 back for a pack of used cigarette butts.<BR/><BR/>You're also increasing all of our taxes via the overhead to run such programs.<BR/><BR/>And finally, you're increasing the passed on final cost of goods caused by the costs the acceptors of returned deposits must bear.<BR/><BR/>Study after study has shown people are more than willing to recycle if you make it *very* easy for them. Put a *single* recycle bin at each house than accepts all this stuff. Sort at the processing facility via automation, manual labor, and maybe even criminal labor. Subsidize the sorting costs via the payment for the recycled goods. It easy, it works, and it makes sense.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09396223294042213468noreply@blogger.com