Synopsis
From the Preface: Corporate Soft Drink Foxes and Municipal Blue Box Henhouses by Guy Crittenden, Founding Editor, Solid Waste and Recycling Magazine (1992-2014) "We have fallen so far, and our fall has been by design.... Yet all we do is busy ourselves wondering how to boost recycling rates. Have you noticed the shift in almost all packaging now toward plastic? When did that happen? Now my peanut butter jar, my ketchup and mustard bottle — almost everything! — comes in a plastic container. The soft drink industry kicked open the unsustainable door and the rest of the brand owners rushed through, unnoticed. In the almost quarter century I’ve edited Solid Waste & Recycling Magazine I’ve argued these points repeatedly, often aware that I’m offending some of the very audience (recycling program managers) that reads the publication, and (worse) the recycling equipment manufacturers that advertise with us. Yet the truth must be told. During that time David McRobert has been a stalwart ally in holding policymakers’ toes to the fire on these issues, reminding both the government and industry powers-that-be that the well-recognized waste management hierarchy ranks reduction and reuse above recycling. The whole system is upside down. I’m enthused about this book because McRobert is one of the few voices out there asking these fundamental questions. How much easier it is for the lawyers and consultants who sell themselves to the highest bidder, helping multinationals with their statecraft, and promoting that recycling costs should be a “shared” responsibility between the public and private interests.... It’s a small band of iconoclasts who continue to willingly “speak truth to power,” especially when doing so tears up their ticket on the corporate gravy train. David McRobert is one of those people and I trust readers will enjoy this book and use its information as a cudgel to beat back the interests of multinationals and move us toward a more locally-oriented future, where recycling and deposit-refund systems are used judiciously for appropriate material streams, and in which true extended producer responsibility is implemented as the correct answer to the right question." Guy Crittenden September 2014 THE CORE IDEAS IN THIS BOOK are based on a brief originally prepared in 1991 which examined the role of deposit-refund systems in promoting waste reduction and re-use. Drawing on the example of container reuse, the brief shows that deposit-return systems are an extremely effective way to encourage consumers to recycle and reuse beverage containers, and that the system could very effectively be adapted to other waste products such as batteries, compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) or paint cans, which should be kept out of landfills. Where deposit-refund systems are employed with depots and well promoted, container redemption rates can reach up to 98 per cent. Deposits also have a proven track record on reducing litter, and they are supported by naturalists, cottagers, and others who dislike seeing litter in rural or wilderness areas. However, retailers of beverages in some developed nations dislike deposit/refund systems because they can create more handling work for employees and the cans and bottles have been viewed as "unsightly". Despite these concerns, the environmental benefits of deposit-refund systems include: less pollution; sending less solid waste to landfills; less contaminated recyclables; and reductions in energy (and labour costs) to operate trucks to pick up and process recyclables. But there are other benefits. Reusable products, as opposed to disposable ones, are also cheaper for the average consumer over the long term, saving on the time and effort of constantly replacing disposable items. Deposit-refund systems and refillable containers also are based on the concept of product stewardship, and the argument that consumers and producers should take greater responsibility for the used materials they generate.
"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.
