Container Deposit Legislation for New South Wales - Bringing Back Returnables [The web version of this report can be found at: http://www.geko.net.au/~gargoyle/CDL/Reports/BringingBackReturnables/] Prepared by Peter Hopper, Waste Minimisation Campaign, Friends of the Earth (Sydney). © FoE December 1992 ISBN 0 909313 35 0 Friends of the Earth (FoE) is a broadly-based International environment organisation. FoE was established in Australia in 1974 and since that time has addressed a wide range of issues including; uranium mining, transport, waste minimisation, organic food, ozone protection, and global warming. By providing a source of information, a place for people to meet, a medium for communication, and a base for action, decentralised FoE groups, such as FoE Sydney, allow ordinary people with few resources to protect their environment. Acknowledgements This report represents the tireless efforts of those ordinary people who have campaigned with few resources and without reward for something they believe in. In particular this report is for Joe.... .... and also for my Dad. It was first published, printed, and distributed in December 1992 with the thankful assistance of Ebohr Munoz and financial contributions from a number of supportive businesses. The web version of that original report was launched in July 1998 to provide a useful resource for all those involved in the escalating effort to have Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) introduced in New South Wales, Australia, and other "no deposit, no return" regions of the world. It can be found at: http://www.geko.net.au/~gargoyle/CDL/Reports/BringingBackReturnables/ Peter Hopper CONTENTS Cover Page Publication Details Summary Foreword 1. Introduction 2. Whatever Happened to Refillables? 3. Why Legislate for Deposits on Containers? 4. Deposits Create Jobs ! 5. Environmental Benefits 6. Economic Pros & Industry Cons 7. Social Benefits 8. Making CDL Work for NSW 9. CDL as Part of a Wider Strategy 10. Conclusion Appendix I: OECD Recommendation Concerning the Re-use and Recycling of Beverage Containers Appendix II: CDL & Kerbside Appendix III: Waste Stream Analysis - The Proliferation of Plastic References SUMMARY With the prospect of Sydney, Australia's largest city, transporting its waste to country areas for disposal by 1997, New South Wales is undoubtedly in the midst of a waste crisis. With hindsight, the waste disposal problems we now face can be partly blamed on beverage and container manufacturers who, during the 70s, forced a shift from refillable to disposable containers. Rather than 'refillables' we now have mountains of garbage, highlighting the need to return to more traditional methods of minimising our waste. The introduction of Container Deposit Legislation would help to reverse many of the undesirable trends begun in the 70s, propagated during the 80s, and now causing major problems in the 90s. The 'sickness' in our environment, the economy, the job market and in society generally can be treated - perhaps even cured! A return to the use of refillable containers in NSW will certainly help. To this end the introduction of CDL in NSW would: * achieve return rates of between 84 and 97% for deposit-bearing containers (chapters 3 & 5). * create at least 3000 jobs (chapters 4 & 6). * lead to a reduction in total solid waste of between 4 and 6% (chapter 5). * reduce beverage container industry energy consumption by around 40% and total NSW energy consumption by around 0.2% (chapter 5). * more than halve the air and water pollution caused by containers (chapter 5). * reduce our dependence on landfills and incinerators for disposal (chapter 5). * reduce beverage container litter by 70 to 90% and total litter by up to 50% (chapter 5). * reduce our unsustainable level of resource consumption (chapter 5). * reduce the cost of drinks by up to 40% (chapter 6). * prevent increased litter clean-up and waste disposal charges being borne by the community (chapter 6). * remove the need for local and state governments to subsidise voluntary container collection schemes (chapter 6). * save the almost extinct refillable glass milk bottle which delivers milk to consumers almost 6c per litre cheaper than the alternative containers (chapter 6). * improve our balance of trade by reducing raw material imports (chapter 6). * empower individuals, recognising them as an important link in the waste reduction process (chapter 7). * provide a greater level of social interaction (chapter 7). * heighten the environmental awareness of consumers, thus influencing other purchasing decisions in their lives (chapter 7). * allow 'kerbside' to focus its attention on the collection of paper and compostable material (Appendix II). * have a dramatic effect on the amount of plastic in the waste stream. Plastic currently consumes around 26% of domestic landfill space (Appendix III). Despite the overwhelming case in favour of CDL, financially powerful beverage and container interests throw millions of dollars a year into lobbying and propaganda campaigns to ensure its non-introduction. Preferring to appease industry rather than protect jobs, consumers and the environment, state and federal governments have done little to challenge these industries and ensure the availability of refillable containers. More recently, local government in NSW has been handed responsibility for solving the state's waste crisis. With a long history of support for CDL, local government now has the opportunity to throw its weight behind this effective and responsible waste reduction initiative. As a result 1993 may be the year we finally get Container Deposit Legislation for New South Wales and start bringing back returnables. The following schematic diagram illustrates how CDL would work in NSW. [see http://www.geko.net.au/~gargoyle/CDL/Schematic.GIF] FOREWORD There were two delightful surprises about buying the local red wine from the village shop in Tuscany. One was that you took your own two litre container, any container and Antonio would happily fill it up with what we foreigners called Chateau Tuesday. The other surprise was that this excellent drop seemed never to cause hangover. I don't believe the two phenomena were connected. But they might be. The result was that our stone villa had no growing graveyard of bottles, however hard we played. There was a neatness, a spare efficiency about this. No clutter, no bulky ware being hauled in from far away to package the local product. The wine came straight from the hillside where the vines grew, with a brief spell in the winemaker's cellars, on to our tables. Fine for the village but, you may quarrel, this won't make sense in urban Australia. We need swift containment of product to move it about and keep it clean. Perhaps, but we also need ways to reduce clutter and the nineties are ramming home as the eighties didn't that you can't simply take on a convenient system because it appears to cost less in isolation. Products must be valued 'from cradle to grave' or from the time their ingredients are wrenched from nature to the day they are finally disposed of. Then you get a more sobering picture of price. That's why it can be good to require money to be deposited on bottles and some other containers. It does two things. First it reminds of the expense of creating the object. Secondly it makes us provide labour to help keep our environment free of rubbish. We do this as an unthinking contribution. I am aware that there are those in industry that argue that the costs of container deposits as a scheme to run is too high. This report has provided counter arguments and well- marshalled evidence on the other side. This is just the kind of thoughtful material we require to resolve the debate and construct useful legislation. In the last two years councils all over Australia have revolutionised their approach to recycling. But still the mounds grow, still the landfills brim with garbage. What we need is a substantial diminution of the load of containers coupled with a switch to industry that is truly productive of what we need. Real wealth not ephemera. When I was small and my family was badly off I used to scour the streets of London for bottles taking them to the shops for pennies. The change mounted up and often came to enough to buy our dinner. I don't imagine that container legislation will become a branch of the economy to aid the disadvantaged but I do believe it will galvanise the young and willing who are keen for that little bit extra. If it does I hope that our coastline will one day look like another European landscape (other than Tuscany) that impressed me. The walks along the ancient hills of West Wales are not only breathtakingly beautiful, they are also completely free of rubbish. This is so rare a sight I can only promise you it's as uplifting as a new spring. Perhaps this report can help make such a sight universal. Robyn Williams Broadcaster and Science Journalist Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Since the early 1970s when refillable beverage containers began disappearing from shelves, the question of their return has been a contentious issue. Many have expressed concern over the detrimental effects of replacing refillables with one-trip containers. Consumer groups [1], the environment movement [2, p.66] and local government [2, p.67] in particular have been outspoken - especially in pushing for Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) to reverse this undesirable trend. Vigorously opposed to any such regulation, the beverage and container manufacturing industries have been devious in their attempts to avoid CDL - even to the point of funding the New South Wales Government to operate the 'Do the Right Thing' (put it in the bin) program "conditional on CDL not being introduced" [3, p.31]. However, with the alarming rate of growth in waste generation [4, p.13-16] and coinciding escalation of concern for the environment, the NSW community is now exerting great pressure to have effective waste minimisation policies introduced. For a number of years, voluntary container collection and recycling schemes have been favoured by most state governments, including NSW. Unfortunately, voluntary schemes achieve low recovery rates. On the other hand, while many advocate the outright banning of certain products or materials, the mere mention brings shrieks of abhorrence from industry. Between these extremes, CDL is an effective and responsible waste reduction initiative. In contrast to the voluntary approach, CDL ensures nearly 100% of deposit-bearing containers are diverted from the waste stream and returned to their originators - who can then choose to reuse or recycle them or bear the costs associated with their disposal. Ultimately, CDL encourages a shift back to reusable containers made from recyclable materials. While waste is an important issue and needs to be addressed with great urgency, CDL offers many other benefits. The seemingly overwhelming environmental, employment, economic and social problems presently challenging society can all benefit from the introduction of CDL. This report explains how CDL can play a vital role in reducing waste, and more widely in our quest for a responsible and sustainable society. Chapter 2 WHATEVER HAPPENED TO REFILLABLES? The advent and growth of the 'throwaway society' in the United States during the 1950s and 60s caused many problems. Not the least of these was the damaging effect on employment and the environment of a dramatic decline in the use of refillable glass bottles. Despite the US experience however, both the United Kingdom and later Australia (during the 70s) followed the US example - experiencing precisely the same trends. While the shift away from refillables was hastened by container manufacturers, who recognised the opportunity to dramatically increase their profits, and supermarkets, who favoured a fast turnover of goods [5, p.21], small soft drink bottling companies claimed the move to one-way containers was part of a concerted effort by larger bottling companies to dominate the market [6, p.130]. As larger bottling companies expanded their market share and the geographic range of their distribution network, the convenience of one-way containers became even more attractive to them. But for them to succeed in local markets where refillables had a cost advantage, small bottlers had to be removed as a competitive force to enable the more expensive one-trip containers to monopolise the market [6, p.130]. Since the smaller companies could not afford the one-trip containers or the new high- speed equipment used for filling them, and because the move to one-way packaging favoured centralisation, small bottlers were either bought-up or forced out of business. As a result, from 1974 to 1989 the number of soft drink companies in New South Wales fell by 80% from 135 to just 27 [7] and the market for refillables was effectively destroyed. Today virtually no refillable beverage containers remain. With no evidence to suggest that the growth of a refillable container system occurs other than by government action [5, p.27], Container Deposit Legislation has been successfully employed in many parts of the world. In Australia, CDL has been enacted in only one state. South Australia began operating CDL in 1977, primarily as a litter-control measure, to prevent the further penetration of disposables into their market. The success of CDL in SA is an example to the other states which have, as yet, failed to introduce it - mainly as a result of powerful lobbying by the beverage and container industries which claim it is expensive and impractical. It is interesting to note that these same industries, who so vigorously condemn the deposit system now, voluntarily used deposits to ensure the return of their containers long before they introduced one-trip 'disposables'. Chapter 3 WHY LEGISLATE FOR DEPOSITS ON CONTAINERS? Deposit systems typically achieve far higher return rates than other collection schemes. In South Australia for example, deposits on glass beverage containers achieve return rates of between 84 and 97% [8, p.5] compared with only 27% [9, p.56] for glass containers without a deposit in New South Wales. Yet despite the acknowledged success of Container Deposit Legislation in SA at retrieving containers for re-use and recycling, the beverage and container industries lobby vigorously against it in other states. Since these industries profit so greatly from the continued production of one-trip containers it would be unrealistic to expect that they would ever voluntarily re-introduce deposits on containers. Recognising this as long ago as 1978 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommended [5, pp.158-159] that member countries, including Australia; "adopt appropriate measures with a view to maintaining, or where necessary introducing, a system of distribution by refillable containers covering as much as possible of the beverage trade", and that, "regardless of the measures taken to promote the re-use of beverage containers, member countries encourage the recycling of the ultimately disposed-of containers". - reproduced in full in Appendix I. Having paid little attention to this recommendation, NSW, like the rest of Australia has suffered from the loss of refillables (except in SA) and is in the midst of a waste crisis. As a result, the only means of re-introducing refillables, other than by banning one-trip containers, is to legislate for deposits. Additionally, the introduction of CDL is necessary to pave the way for, and be an integral part of, a broader strategy to reduce all waste. A Container Deposit Bill, prepared by Friends of the Earth to suit the existing infrastructure in NSW, will come before parliament during 1993. The introduction of CDL is vital to ensure the successful operation of an effective waste minimisation strategy for this state. Chapter 4 DEPOSITS CREATE JOBS ! At least 3000 new jobs will be created by the introduction of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales. The job creation potential of CDL contrasts with the job losses over the past 20 years caused by the shift from refillable to one-trip containers. Despite a 51.7% increase in production from 1974 to 1989, employment in the NSW beverage industry fell a staggering 53.7%, from over 3500 to around 1600 jobs (see Graph 1). Less than half the number of people employed in the industry in 1974 still had their jobs in 1989 [7]. [Data Table for Graphs 1 & 2] Companies, Production & Employment - NSW Soft Drink Industry (1974-1989) Year Companies Production (Mega-Litres) Employment 1974 135 309 3524 1975 105 294 3229 1976 101 329 3132 1977 84 364 2729 1978 72 379 2980 1979 66 329 2249 1980 59 334 2101 1981 60 310 2134 1982 52 333 1951 1983 51 322 1861 1984 51 341 1759 1985 44 379 1827 1986 37 385 1711 1987 30 432 1594 1988 47 469 1668 1989 27 472 1629 Notes Production: NSW Production of Mineral and Aerated Water (Bottled & Canned). Source: Aust Bureau of Stats (ABS) 8359.0 Companies: Number of Soft Drink Manufacturers. Source: Aust Bureau of Stats (ABS) 8207.1, 8204.1 Employment: Employment in NSW Soft Drink Industry. Source: Aust Bureau of Stats (ABS) 8207.1, 8204.1 "Companies" and "Employment" figures not available for 1985/86 - interpolated estimates have been used. "Year" runs through 1/1 (eg. 1974 = 1973/74) This dramatic fall in employment was mainly the result of small soft drink companies being forced out of business. Because one-way packaging fosters centralisation of bottlers and breweries and because the smaller companies could not afford the one-way containers or the new high-speed equipment used for filling them, between 1974 and 1989 the number of soft drink companies in NSW fell by 80% from 135 to just 27 [7] as shown in Graph 2. [see Data Table for Graphs 1 & 2 above] CDL on the other hand encourages decentralisation as a consequence of the greater use of refillables. CDL acts to promote smaller bottlers, encourages new businesses to enter the market and fosters a greater level of competition. Wherever deposit legislation has been introduced, a net increase in employment results. Jobs are typically created in handling and sorting beverage containers at retail outlets and collection depots, transporting refillable bottles and recyclable materials, and washing and refilling bottles by drink manufacturers. The following examples indicate the positive relationship between deposits and employment for states where CDL has been introduced [10, pp.238-241]: 1. Vermont - with a population of 450,000, an increase of 350 jobs resulted. No job losses were reported. 2. Maine - with a population of 1.08 million (1979) an estimated 626 jobs were created with distributors reporting an increase in jobs in warehousing and distribution of between 10% and 40%. No job losses were reported. 3. Oregon - with a population of 2.1 million, the Oregon Government reported the creation of 576 jobs in warehousing and handling and 140 jobs in transportation. 350 jobs were cited as lost, however, peculiarities in the legislation's timing could have been to blame. 4. Connecticut - with a population of 3 million, 700 jobs were created. 5. Michigan - with a population of 9.2 million (1979) 4888 jobs were created. While 240 job losses were claimed they could not clearly be attributed to deposits. 6. South Australia - with a population of around 1.3 million, a 1983 survey indicated that 319 full-time and 381 permanent part-time jobs were created. [Data Table for Graph 3] Jobs Created by CDL per head of population State Population (Millions) Jobs Created Vermont 0.45 350 Maine 1.08 626 Oregon 2.1 716 Connecticut 3 700 Michigan 9.2 4648 South Australia 1.3 700 New South Wales 5.9 3000 Notes New South Wales job creation estimated using straight-line of best fit through other data. Oregon job losses which could be attributed to peculiarities in the legislation's timing, have not been deducted. Graph 3 illustrates that the introduction of deposits on beverage containers in NSW, with a population of 5.9 million, will result in the creation of around 3000 jobs. The fact that NSW is now more entrenched in one-way containers than these states were at the time they introduced CDL suggests an even higher figure could be expected while extension of the system to cover other containers in the waste stream would create still more employment. To stimulate employment in a recessed economy it is important to preserve and build upon processes in industry that are both labour-intensive and economically viable. The introduction of CDL is a good example of how a return to more labour-intensive processes will help reduce unemployment while delivering products to the community just as productively and inexpensively as the mechanised processes which have more recently replaced them. Chapter 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS By ensuring containers have a high rate of return to their original fillers, the introduction of Container Deposit Legislation would encourage a shift away from one-trip containers and towards refillables. While manufacturers of one-trip containers argue that their products are recyclable, this does not necessarily mean they are being recycled or that recycling these products will ultimately benefit the environment. In fact, in many cases the reverse is true. Recycling is often being used as a marketing tool at the expense of consumers and the environment. Refillables on the other hand greatly reduce our impact on the environment without extra cost. So long as they achieve a certain number of refills or 'trips' (generally around 10 for beverages) to at least overcome the impact of their initial production, refillables reduce waste, minimise the use of materials and energy, and reduce pollution and litter. This is because the overall impact of a container is shared amongst each of its many refills. In practice, refillable bottles generally have no trouble achieving more than the 10 trips necessary for them to 'break even'. Because of the strong financial incentive for them to do so, fillers take advantage of the durability of refillables by collecting, washing and refilling them as many times as possible. In the past it was not uncommon for bottles to be washed and refilled 50 or more times [5, p.37]. Even today, one of the last remaining refillables in New South Wales, the all-but-forgotten milk bottle, achieves a 96% return rate (equivalent to 25 trips [11]) with little if any promotion. Imagine the re-use rate possible if refillables were the rule rather than the exception! The following environmental benefits will be derived from the introduction of CDL as a result of significantly higher levels of re-use and recycling. WASTE REDUCTION Deposit systems achieve extremely high return rates. As a consequence of this, when a business is faced with the return of nearly all the containers they sell, the cost of disposal and economics of container choice comes under scrutiny. For purely financial reasons this encourages a shift to the use of reusable and recyclable containers and utilisation of otherwise wasted resources, with a high level of waste reduction resulting. Consequentially, and in keeping with experience in the United States, the introduction of CDL in NSW would lead to a reduction in total solid waste of between 4 and 6% [10, p.260]. Such a reduction is not surprising considering the return rates in South Australia [8, p.5] for deposit-bearing glass, aluminium and PET drink containers are 84-97%, 85% and 54% respectively. In dramatic contrast to SA the same containers bearing no deposit in NSW [12, p.24] achieve return rates of only 27%, 60% and 3% respectively. Figure 1 represents a 'cradle-to-grave' comparison of the waste associated with various milk and soft drink packaging alternatives. The European Economic Community (EEC) study [13] behind these findings is quoted in a similar Australian study [14]. The more recent Australian study, funded by the association of carton manufacturers, reaffirms the superiority of refillable glass despite the attempts of its sponsors to disguise the fact. [Data Tables for Figures 1 & 2 - Milk & Soft Drink Packaging, Energy & Waste] Milk Container - Energy & Waste Energy BeverageContainer Size Trips % Recycled Impact Waste Impact (L) (M3/KL) (MJ/L) Milk Glass* 568ml 0.568 1 50 9.90 0.3963 Milk Glass 568ml 0.568 10 0 2.50 0.0826 Milk Glass* 568ml 0.568 10 50 2.38 0.0468 Milk Glass* 568ml 0.568 20 50 1.94 0.0234 Milk Glass* 568ml 0.568 50 50 1.69 0.0126 Milk Carton 568ml 0.568 1 0 7.39 0.0886 Milk Carton 1L 1.000 1 0 5.73 0.0747 Milk Plastic 1L 1.000 1 0 6.35 0.0539 Milk Plastic 2.270 1 0 4.33 0.0359 2.27L Notes * indicates recycling of container (see % Recycled). 50% Recycled' values determined by interpolation of other known values. Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) Container - Energy & Waste BeverageContainer Size Trips% Recycled Energy Impact Waste Impact (L) (MJ/L) (M3/KL) CSD Glass* 1L 1.000 1 50 14.45 0.5000 CSD Glass 1L 1.000 10 0 5.71 0.1249 CSD Glass* 1L 1.000 10 50 5.54 0.0747 CSD Glass* 1L 1.000 20 50 4.93 0.0447 CSD Glass* 1L 1.000 50 50 4.57 0.0267 CSD Al* 330ml 0.330 1 50 16.09 0.1246 CSD Al** 330ml 0.330 1 100 13.42 0.0591 CSD PET 1L 1.000 1 0 11.24 0.2577 Notes * indicates recycling of container (see % Recycled) In comparison to its one-trip alternatives, refillable glass (over 10 trips) can be seen to create less waste - an advantage that increases with trippage. RESOURCE CONSERVATION Raw Materials CDL reduces resource consumption by encouraging a shift to reusable and recyclable containers and by ensuring a high rate of their return. As a result, less raw material is required to replace the material which would otherwise have ended up in the waste stream. eg. A refillable glass bottle used 20 times avoids the need for 19 new containers to be manufactured from raw materials. If (as is most likely the case) the bottle is recycled at the end of its reusable life, even more raw materials are saved. Note: This particular example highlights the real reason the various container manufacturers so strongly oppose CDL. Their substantial profits (paid for by consumers) derived from the continual manufacture of one-trip containers would be diminished by a shift to refillables. Water It is often claimed by container manufacturers that a huge amount of water is wasted washing refillables. However, it is more likely that less water is used for refillables than for one-way container systems. In a report [15, p.35] to the Parliament of Australia, 15-trip refillable beer bottles were found to use only one-half to one-third the water of the one-trip alternatives. The report also found that water-borne wastes were significantly reduced. ENERGY CONSERVATION The use of refillable containers, encouraged by CDL, results in significant energy savings in contrast to recycling alone. As the number of trips increases beyond break-even energy savings increase rapidly. The more trips a refillable container achieves, the greater the benefit. A US report [10, p.250] estimates that the enactment of CDL would result in a 33% reduction in energy use in the beverage container industry (including transport) or 0.2% of total US energy usage. Similar findings have been reported by the South Australian Government [16], concluding that energy savings of 43% within the industry or 0.13% of total SA energy usage could be achieved by the use of 10-trip refillables rather than non-refillable bottles. Savings of this magnitude are all the more important in light of the NSW and Federal Government's commitment to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005. Figure 2 compares the energy consumption associated with the various milk and soft drink packaging alternatives. Again, the EEC study [13] which arrived at these values used a cradle-to-grave approach, considering total energy use (including transport) from production to ultimate disposal of each container type. [see Data Tables for Figures 1 & 2 - Milk & Soft Drink Packaging, Energy & Waste above] The superiority of refillable glass is again clearly shown. The energy-saving benefit of recycling one-trip containers however, is demonstrably marginal. The practice of glass bottle and aluminium can recycling is seen to offer relatively small energy savings while the collection and reprocessing of plastic and carton milk containers and PET plastic soft drink bottles, into different products, more likely represents an energy and environmental cost. With no potential for re-use or recycling, the collection and reprocessing of these latter-mentioned containers is arguably little more than a public relations exercise that wastes energy and cause additional pollution. POLLUTION REDUCTION The re-use and recycling of containers, encouraged by CDL, avoids the need for many new containers to be made from raw materials. As a result there is a dramatic reduction in the pollution of our land, air and water caused by mineral extraction, processing and production operations, and waste disposal. Land degradation is reduced by CDL mainly as a result of the smaller amount of waste to be disposed of by landfill and the reduction in litter. The air and water pollution reduction benefits of refillables is quantified by the following US Environmental Protection Agency figures from an OECD report [5, p.59]: Air Emissions Water-borne Waste (grams/litre) (grams/litre) One-Trip Glass 31.3 6.8 Refillable Glass (10-Trip) 11.3 4.2 Aluminium Can 38.8 7.1 Plastic 28.8 8.2 The report goes on to point out that the washing of refillables uses (a mild solution of) caustic soda rather than detergents and that the resultant (alkaline) waste water is frequently used to neutralise the acid wastes from breweries. LITTER REDUCTION The imposition of a refundable deposit on containers has a dramatic effect on the occurrence and persistence of such containers as litter. Because of their elevation in status from 'worthless waste' to 'valuable commodity', containers are less likely to be discarded as litter. Even if they are discarded, they are likely to be collected by others to obtain the refund. The operation of CDL is also likely to influence consumer attitudes to other so called 'throwaway' products which are presently noticeable as litter. In line with experience in the US, the introduction of CDL in NSW would reduce beverage container litter by between 70 and 90% and reduce total litter by up to 50% [10, p.260]. Chapter 6 ECONOMIC PROS & INDUSTRY CONS The shift from one-trip to refillable containers, encouraged by Container Deposit Legislation, will help protect the environment and create employment at reduced cost to the community. Yet despite its benefits and the overwhelming support it receives, CDL is aggressively opposed by a powerful vested interest group. The beverage and container manufacturing industries have lobbied against CDL in New South Wales and other states since its successful introduction in South Australia in 1977. Their defiant stand is unsurprising considering they have been the prime beneficiaries of the infiltration and eventual domination of one-trip containers throughout Australia (other than in SA) during the past 15 years. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ONE-TRIP CONTAINERS Higher Prices All members of the community pay for the supposed convenience of one-trip containers by bearing increased waste disposal and litter collection costs, and more recently the cost of subsidised recycling schemes. These extra expenses are passed on to consumers and rate-payers by industry and government via inflated prices, increased taxes and higher local government rates. Business Closures and Higher Unemployment An additional burden on the economy has been caused by the impact of one-trip containers on small businesses and employment. From 1974 to 1989 the number of soft drink companies in NSW fell by 80% from 135 to just 27. Correspondingly, employment in the industry fell from over 3500 to around 1600 jobs. Less than half the number of people employed in the industry in 1974 still had their jobs in 1989 [7]. Despite these statistics, soft drink production in NSW increased by a staggering 50% over the same period! But how could this happen...? The US experience described by Scott and Moore [17, p.56] is equally true for Australia: "As one way containers eliminated the need to return empties to a bottling plant for refilling, beverages could be shipped over much longer distances. This enabled producers, especially breweries, to construct huge bottling and canning facilities ... result(ing) in bigger market shares for national brewers and a concentration of the industry. Many of the small regional brewers were either bought up or driven out of business." A direct consequence of the reduced competition resulting from these dramatic changes in the beverage market has been significantly higher prices. CDL has been highly successful in reversing these trends. THE BRRU REPORT - INDUSTRY'S GREAT DEFENCE In an attempt to justify their past actions and maintain their present favourable position, beverage and container interests cite a study (funded by themselves) by the Business Regulation Review Unit (BRRU). In light of its source of funding it is unsurprising that the report concludes CDL would cost Australia $500 million and that we only face a $50 million problem [3, p.94]. Criticism of the BRRU report has come from such sources as the Australian Consumers' Association [18] and the Centre for South Australian Economic Studies [19]. The report's questionable economic methodology and source of funding has made it the subject of close scrutiny and exposed its intellectual crudity. In brief, the main criticisms of the BRRU report are: * it only considers a narrow range of benefits - litter and waste disposal - and these are heavily understated, * impacts on production costs are obtained from questionable sources, * 'inconvenience costs' are highly overstated, * the report was partly funded by the Litter Research Association (LRA) - a beverage and container industry interest group. As a result of these findings, few outside the vested interest groups opposed to CDL regard the BRRU report as a credible document. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REFILLABLES AND CDL By achieving high container recovery rates and returning them to their original fillers, CDL encourages the use of refillables. This promotes a greater level of competition by enabling smaller businesses to enter the market. As a result, the cost of affected products and community services is generally reduced over time. Lower Prices Studies have consistently found refillables the least expensive container alternative. This is because production costs are distributed over the many trips these containers achieve. Refillable containers result in the more efficient use of energy and resources, less pollution and reduced waste for disposal when compared with one-trip containers. These benefits are ultimately passed on to consumers in the form of cheaper prices. For example: * US studies show drinks are 20 to 40% cheaper when purchased in refillable containers [6]. * A South Australian Government study shows that its beer, in refillable bottles, is the cheapest in Australia [20, pp.24-26]. * In NSW, the maximum allowable price for milk is almost 6 cents per litre cheaper in refillable glass than the next cheapest packaging option (see Figure 3 below) [21]. [Data Table for Figure 3] Milk Container - Price BeverageContainer Size (L) Trips Price (c/L) Milk Glass 600ml 0.600 25 2.3 Milk Carton 600ml 0.600 1 12.35 Milk Carton 1L 1.000 1 10.49 Milk Plastic 1L 1.000 1 12.60 Milk Plastic 2L 2.000 1 8.18 Notes Prices (as at 12 March 1992, in Australian currency) from Robert Tylor, Pricing Dept, NSW Dairy Corp. Reduced Government Costs Additional savings attributable to CDL arise from the reduction in litter collection and waste disposal costs and avoidance of the need to subsidise voluntary container collection schemes. * Reduced litter means less government money is needed for clean-ups. The Maine Department of Transport, for example, estimated their highway clean-up costs have halved since the introduction of CDL [17, p.58]. * As waste disposal charges rise to reflect diminishing disposal capacity, CDL will prevent much of this extra expense being borne by the community. * In contrast to CDL, voluntary container collection schemes are typically uneconomic and require subsidy - again at the expense of the community. While deposit systems typically achieve high return rates (approaching 100%) and encourage re-use, voluntary container collection schemes, such as 'kerbside', experience low return rates, collection inefficiencies, and fail to encourage re-use (see also "CDL & Kerbside" - Appendix II). A Boon to Small Business and Employment By encouraging decentralisation (as a consequence of the shift to a refillable system) CDL acts to promote smaller fillers and encourage new businesses to enter the market. In doing so CDL fosters a greater level of competition and creates employment. Experience has shown that wherever deposit legislation has been introduced, a net increase in employment inevitably results. The introduction of deposits on beverage containers in NSW will create around 3000 jobs. Extension of the system to cover other containers in the waste stream would create even more employment. Improved Balance of Trade Many of the one-trip containers currently available are made of imported materials from the US and Europe (PET plastic bottles and paperboard cartons being the best known examples). CDL would lead to a reduction in these raw material imports in line with the greater level of resource conservation attributable to the shift to refillable and recyclable containers. WHAT EFFECT ON INDUSTRY? There is little doubt the introduction of CDL will cause some restructuring of the beverage and container industries. However, such an impact is necessary to re- establish the supply of refillables, boost employment, and improve the recycling rate for containers far beyond the level expected for voluntary container collection and recycling schemes. As affected companies make the conversion from one-trip to refillable containers some capital outlay for bottle washing equipment will be required. However, any argument against CDL for this reason has little substance considering: * bottle washing and re-use actually reduces per-use container costs. * new businesses involved in the washing and resale of bottles will enter the market. * SA beer and soft drink bottlers have not experienced any adverse business effects from refillable bottles. The Marketing Manager of C-C Bottlers Ltd, for example, has stated [22] "re-using bottles had proved a healthy economic proposition". * any initial capital expenses which may be necessary will reflect the price producers must pay to accept responsibility for, and avoid the disposal costs of, the containers they generate. For too long beverage and container manufacturers have reaped excessive profits from one-trip containers at the expense of consumers and rate-payers. Since these industries first chose to undermine the market for refillables, the community has been forced to bear the costs associated with fewer jobs, more expensive products, litter collection and waste disposal and, more recently, subsidising voluntary container collection and recycling schemes. Given the opportunity CDL will help to reverse this inequity in NSW. Chapter 7 SOCIAL BENEFITS In addition to the more tangible employment, environmental and economic benefits, Container Deposit Legislation offers some very important social benefits. While voluntary container collection schemes provide little incentive to those unaware or sceptical of the benefits of re-use and recycling, CDL encourages participation by offering a refundable deposit. Experience has shown this financial inducement is quickly enhanced by changing consumer values as they appreciate the importance of their involvement. This is borne out by studies which indicate overwhelming community endorsement for CDL. In South Australia for example, where CDL receives bipartisan political support, it is reported [8, p.7] that: * 72% of people view the Beverage Container Act as effective in reducing litter; * 65% want the government to do more to stop non-reusable bottles; * 77% consider returnables superior to convenience packaging. With such support it is not surprising to learn that any move to revoke CDL is met with strong opposition. The Keep South Australia Beautiful Council for example believes "the South Australian public would react violently to the State Government removing its ... deposit legislation" [23,p.13]. The following important but often over-looked reasons for CDL may help to explain the existence of such strong sentiment in support of CDL from the general community: * By giving consumers the right to return containers, CDL empowers individuals. This allows them to feel an important part of the waste solution and perhaps encourages them to participate in other socially-beneficial activities. * The act of returning containers for re-use (rather than simply recycling or disposing of them) provides a greater level of social interaction than we currently enjoy. The fact that all parts of the community share responsibility for the safe use and return of refillable containers broadens the scope of this interaction. * By encouraging consumers to differentiate between products and packaging designed for re-use, recycling and disposal, CDL also performs a valuable educative role. As consumers learn more about the relative impact of these items their heightened environmental awareness will influence their other purchasing decisions. As a result of all the environmental, employment, economic and social benefits, the introduction of CDL will improve our quality of life. Chapter 8 MAKING CDL WORK FOR NSW South Australia has operated Container Deposit Legislation since 1977. Its effectiveness as a waste minimisation and litter control measure is evidenced by its high level of community acceptance and the bipartisan political support it receives. The SA Government is now in an ideal position to expand the deposit system to address other components of the waste stream. New South Wales on the other hand has blundered itself into a waste disposal crisis. The realisation of this has given rise to sudden 'panic' from all corners of the political arena. With waste now firmly on the political agenda, NSW has the ready-made opportunity to introduce CDL (as part of a wider strategy to reduce all waste) which improves on the SA model. Figure 4 illustrates how CDL would work for NSW. Figure 4 NSW CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION - SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM [see http://www.geko.net.au/~gargoyle/CDL/Schematic.GIF] The following sections describe specific features of the legislation proposed for NSW. Divergences from the SA model are identified by italics. CONTAINERS Initially, only containers for beverages will be covered by the Act. In SA certain containers are exempt from the provisions of the Act. This has caused some problems including the disappearance of milk in refillable glass. To avoid such problems, and claims of discrimination, all beverage containers will be covered by the NSW Act. The Act includes a schedule of products for which a deposit should apply to their containers. The SA Act is limited to beverage containers. The incorporation of a schedule in the NSW Act allows other products, whose containers are currently in the waste stream, to be added as desired. eg. Detergent could be added to the schedule so that all types of detergent containers would be required to carry a deposit. DEPOSIT A refundable deposit, reflecting the true cost of the container, will apply to all containers covered by the Act. Initially this would be set at 20 cents with a review of the deposit amount on all containers once the system is operational. A deposit of either 5 or 10 cents applies to containers covered by the SA Act. Although these deposit amounts result in good return rates, the higher deposit amount proposed for NSW would achieve correspondingly higher returns. The deposit would be imposed by the filler/importer of the container and passed on at each stage of distribution to the consumer. Exemptions from the scheme will be allowed for specific cases such as for home delivery milk vendors and other systems achieving more than 10 refills for their containers. POINT-OF-SALE RETURN Payment of a deposit by consumers gives them the opportunity for point-of-sale return of containers to retail outlets. Retailers are obliged to accept from consumers containers of the type they supply. Similarly, fillers/importers are obliged to accept from retailers containers of the type they supply. Return of the container to the filler/importer would ensure they are ultimately responsible for refilling, recycling or disposing of the containers they choose to supply. In SA only certain containers can be returned to the point-of-sale. The remainder must be returned to collection depots. To avoid the unnecessary cost and inefficiency of collection depots, payment of a deposit in NSW will give consumers the choice of returning containers to either retail outlets or via alternative collection schemes. OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMPETITION TO POINT-OF-SALE RETURN In keeping with the landmark "Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste" recently introduced in Germany, the establishment of collection schemes to compete with point-of-sale return is not precluded by the NSW Act. Pressure from retailers and fillers for example may persuade container manufacturers to establish, promote and maintain collection schemes which divert material from point-of-sale return. The establishment of drop-off centres or house-to- house collection schemes could thereby avoid the need for containers to be returned to retailers. Alternatively, private businesses, local councils or community organisations could establish and benefit from their own operation of such collection schemes. The aim of establishing and operating such schemes should be to provide an even more effective and efficient collection system than point-of-sale return, rather than as a mere public relations exercise, as is often the case now. Collection depots for deposit-bearing containers were being operated by industry in SA long before CDL was introduced and were therefore incorporated in the SA Act. Since such depots do not already exist in NSW they have not been included in the NSW Act. However, the NSW Act does not preclude such depots or other competitive alternatives to point-of-sale return being established. Regardless of the manner of collection, consumers would remain entitled to a full refund of deposit. ADMINISTRATION A minimal amount of administration would be required by fillers/importers to: * keep records of transactions involving deposit bearing containers, and, * contribute to an unclaimed deposits fund. A Container Deposit Advisory Committee, established under the Act, would: * monitor the success of the system by determining the return rate of containers, and, * oversee spending of the unclaimed deposits fund to promote/improve the deposit system and increase the return rate of containers. Unclaimed deposits are used to subsidise collection depots in SA. Since no such subsidy is necessary in NSW these funds can be used to improve the overall performance of the scheme or promote other aspects of waste reduction. Chapter 9 CDL AS PART OF A WIDER STRATEGY European countries such as Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland are renowned for leading the 'developed' world in waste minimisation. Their commitment to reducing waste has resulted in highly-efficient manufacturing procedures and contributed to the stability and competitiveness of their economies. It is worthy of note that each of these countries distribute their beverages in predominantly refillable containers. A landmark "Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste" introduced in Germany in 1991 has been highly publicised in Australia. The new system, designed to ensure manufacturers take more responsibility for the packaging they create, gives consumers the right to leave excess packaging behind or return it to the point-of-sale later. As a result, far greater pressure is placed on manufacturers, via retailers, to establish alternative collection schemes and ensure their packaging is reusable and recyclable. Much can be learned from the European experience in addressing the waste crisis which has so quickly enveloped New South Wales and indeed Australia. The German experience has shown Container Deposit Legislation is a necessary precursor to the introduction of further waste minimisation legislation. Without CDL, the high return rates, emphasis on re-use, and precedent of point-of-sale return, all necessary to make a wider strategy work, will not be achieved. CDL will pave the way for wide and effective waste minimisation legislation in NSW. On the other hand, if this opportunity to introduce CDL is foregone, there will remain no clear direction or long-term strategy capable of reducing waste to the extent necessary in coming years. Chapter 10 CONCLUSION Container Deposit Legislation is unique in its ability to address so many employment, environmental, economic and social problems, attributable to the beverage and container manufacturing industries, with just one relatively simple legislative act. Of course it would be ridiculous to expect that CDL could be introduced without causing at least a small change to our daily lives. But some change must be expected if we are to create jobs, minimise our environmental impact, reduce prices and improve our quality of life. The fact that CDL receives such a high level of community support is testimony to the fact that its benefits far outweigh any inconvenience it may cause. The opportunity we now have to introduce CDL is timely, given that New South Wales is in the midst of a waste crisis. The fact that CDL offers solutions to so many other serious problems facing our society makes its introduction all the more urgent. The overwhelming case in its favour, presented in this report, is sure to have left many readers feeling that any further delay to its introduction would be grossly irresponsible. Besides showing callous regard for the environment it would demonstrate an unwillingness to act in the best interests of the unemployed. CDL is an excellent example of an economically viable system which creates employment and protects the environment. And, contrary to the unfounded claims of industry, it achieves these desirable goals while delivering products to the community just as productively and inexpensively as the more mechanised processes which have caused so many employment, environmental, economic and social problems. The beverage and container manufacturing industries have had us blindly serving their interests for far too long. With South Australia having benefited from CDL for the past 15 years, the introduction of CDL in NSW is long overdue. Appendix I OECD RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE RE-USE AND RECYCLING OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS Recommendation Of The Council Concerning The Re-Use And Recycling Of Beverage Containers (Adopted by the OECD Council on 3rd February, 1978) The Council, Having regard to Article 5(b) of the Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of 14th December, 1960; Having regard to the Recommendation of the Council of 28th September, 1976 on a Comprehensive Waste Management Policy, calling in particular for the development and implementation of measures to reduce waste generation and encourage recycling; Considering that beverage containers do not account for an insignificant proportion of household waste and are a major source of litter; and that clean-up and disposal costs are a matter of concern to local authorities and governments in many Member countries; Considering that in many countries the generally observed trend in the beverage container market is towards the replacement of refillable bottles by disposable containers, thus tending to make problems of waste disposal more acute; Considering that systems of beverage distribution by refillable containers, over and above a certain trippage which is generally achieved in practice, are at present proving superior to most other systems not only as concerns municipal solid waste generation but also from such standpoints as energy consumption, litter, air and water pollution; Considering that certain measures such as the standardization of containers and the recycling of their constituent materials can also greatly help to reduce waste disposal problems, either by encouraging the introduction and satisfactory operation of a system of refillable containers, or by refillable containers, or by creating conditions likely to divert certain forms of waste from the disposal circuit with a view to their profitable reclamation; Considering that national policies towards the internalisation of external costs are to be implemented on the basis of action principles common to all Member countries, in order to avoid the creation of trade barriers; Having regard to the Report of the Environment Committee on the re-use and recycling of beverage containers, where practical measures which can be envisaged for implementing the present Recommendation are discussed in detail; On the proposal of the Environment Committee; I. RECOMMENDS that Member countries, through international co-operation as appropriate, where practicable define and implement policies designed to ensure that the costs of the adverse environmental impacts of the manufacture and use of beverage containers are effectively and equitably borne by the producers and users of such containers. II. RECOMMENDS that Member countries adopt appropriate measures with a view to maintaining, or where necessary introducing, a system of distribution by refillable containers covering as much as possible of the beverage trade when it is expected that, in doing so, the social costs of the beverage distribution systems are minimized. III. RECOMMENDS that, when measures to promote the use of refillable beverage containers are considered, they be accompanied by an effort to standardize such containers, possibly undertaken on the basis of collaboration between the countries concerned in order to prevent trade barriers. IV. RECOMMENDS that, regardless of the measures taken to promote the re-use of beverage containers, Member countries encourage the recycling of the ultimately disposed-of containers, and take any other necessary step to reduce as much as possible any adverse effect they may have on the environment. Appendix II CDL & KERBSIDE Container Deposit Legislation and kerbside collection are not mutually exclusive material recovery systems despite industry's claim that "CDL will destroy kerbside". In fact, both are vitally important to the success of a comprehensive waste minimisation strategy. Operating alone, CDL would reduce the domestic waste stream's volume by around 20 percent - almost twice the amount collected by kerbside [24]. But paper and compostable material, which consume a further 60 percent of landfill space, still need to be collected. It's not a question of 'CDL or kerbside?'. It's a matter of using the right 'tool' for the job. Deposits for containers - kerbside for paper and compostable material. Container deposit systems operate throughout the world. Typically they achieve high return rates (approaching 100%) and encourage re-use as well as recycling. By contrast, the kerbside collection of drink containers in Australia achieves low return rates, fails to encourage re-use, suffers collection inefficiencies, is uneconomic for councils, requires a significant level of subsidisation by rate-payers, and increases drink prices to consumers. By failing to encourage re-use the kerbside collection and recycling of containers is also made difficult to justify on environmental grounds. In some cases the extra resource consumption and pollution generation of the collection and recycling process means it does more harm than good. While the introduction of CDL would provide a clear view of the materials in the recycling and waste streams that do not pay their own way, the economics of kerbside is a complicated affair. For example, under the present kerbside collection scheme glass subsidises the collection of other materials. But long-term cross-subsidisation of materials is not a desirable option if the success of a comprehensive waste minimisation strategy is to be ensured - just as long-term subsidisation of a product or activity is unjustifiable within the business sector. Why should glass subsidise the collection and recycling of plastic and other materials? Should not each material begin to pay its own way? Surely the glass industry would be the first to agree - unless of course it is being maintained merely as a guise to protect the interests of its 'big brother' the plastics industry1. Once aware of the plastic industry's ownership of the glass industry it is not difficult to see that plastic will continue to replace glass wherever it can. This will make recycling collection and waste disposal services even more expensive for local government, and therefore the community. While councils and contract recyclers regard glass as the most valued material in the domestic recycling stream, how much thought has been given to the long-term viability of the multi-material kerbside collection service? Plastic already accounts for almost twice the weight of glass and more than 10 times its volume in the domestic waste stream (see "Waste Stream Analysis" - Appendix III). As plastic continues to replace glass, and the community continues to demand that more material be collected for recycling, the cost of providing such services will spiral upwards. The industry-sponsored campaign to discredit CDL, which will inevitably precede its introduction, should instead be seen as a valuable opportunity to also reform kerbside. The introduction of CDL would allow kerbside to be streamlined, collecting fewer, more suitable materials - namely paper and compostables. It should be financed by appropriate industries and perhaps the state government until viable in its own right. In this way kerbside can earn its place beside CDL as a serious waste minimisation initiative. To lay-to-rest the packaging industry's claim that CDL and kerbside cannot work together, consider the conclusion of a recent study by the Seattle Solid Waste Utility [27]: "In short, a bottle bill [CDL] would divert additional tonnage with no significant impact to either City costs or curbside recycling profits." To quote from a March 1992 report by the Washington DC based Container Recycling Institute [28]: "The sun appears to be setting on the 'deposit-systems-destroy-curbside recycling' anti-bottle bill argument." -------------------------------------- 1. The Australian glass industry is, in fact, now owned and controlled by the multinational rubber and plastics company BTR Nylex. Much to the displeasure of the Trade Practices Commission [25]&[26] BTR Nylex now monopolises glass production in Australia, having acquired ACI in 1988 and Smorgon's Glass Containers in 1991. Appendix III WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS - THE PROLIFERATION OF PLASTIC Until now, little information has been available which gives an accurate account of the proportion of constituents in the domestic waste stream. For whatever reason, neither the former Waste Management Authority of NSW nor its successor(s), the Waste Recycling and Processing Service (WRAPS) and Environment Protection Authority (EPA), have been willing or able to report such figures1. And establishing such information from industry production figures has proven an even more arduous task with the Bureau of Statistics, for example, withholding vital information on confidentiality grounds . However, accompanying the recent proposal by the WMA to expand Lucas Heights tip, to allow it to receive the lions' share of Sydney's waste, was a proposal by BHP to establish a materials recovery facility (MRF) on the site to extract (primarily) steel cans from the mixed waste stream. Although the plan to extend Lucas Heights tip has now been abandoned, the waste analysis conducted by BHP [29] sheds new light on the composition of Sydney's garbage. Domestic Waste Analysis, Lucas Heights Landfill, BHP, October 1991 % by Wt% by Vol.2 By Material: Compostables (food, garden) 61.6 33.0 Paper (cardboard, newsprint, misc, magazines) 16.4 27.1 Plastic (film, various bottles) 8.0 26.2 Mixed (textiles, cartons, nappies, rubber, batteries, medical) 5.0 6.1 Metals (ferrous & non-ferrous) 4.0 5.2 Glass (white, brown, green) 5.0 2.4 By Product Type: Packaging (incl. plastic film; excl. misc paper & batteries) 23.4 43.0 Packaging (further excluding cardboard boxes) 19.9 34.1 Containers (excluding cardboard boxes & batteries) 11.5 18.2 Plastic Film 4.9 15.9 Plastic Bottles 3.1 10.3 Cardboard Boxes 3.5 8.9 Newspapers 6.3 8.2 Misc Paper 4.5 7.9 Textiles (rags etc) 2.0 2.8 Steel Cans and Aerosols 2.3 2.6 Glass Bottles and Jars 5.0 2.4 Magazines 2.1 2.2 Milk/Juice Cartons 0.6 1.6 Disposable Nappies 2.0 1.5 Aluminium Cans 0.5 1.3 Other Steel 1.0 1.0 Other Non-Ferrous 0.2 0.3 Rubber 0.2 0.2 Batteries (Dry Cell) 0.1 0.0 Medical 0.1 0.0 -------------------------------------- 1. The previous analysis of domestic waste in Sydney was a limited survey undertaken by the WMA in 1986 which reported weight but not volume. 2. Volume figures are best described as semi-compacted ie. as delivered to the landfill site from a garbage truck compactor. REFERENCES [1] "Who's really rubbishing Australia ... and how can we stop it?", Choice - Journal of the Australian Consumers' Association, December 1982, pp. 464-467. [2] "Report on litter control", Australian Environment Council, Report No. 8, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra, 1982. [3] "Review of Business Regulations - Information paper No. 14 - Container Deposit Legislation and the Control of Litter and Waste", Business Regulation Review Unit, Commonwealth of Australia, June 1989. [4] "Sydney Solid Waste Management Strategy", Waste Management Authority of New South Wales, May 1990. [5] "Beverage Containers, Re-use or Recycling", Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 1978. [6] "The Return of Refillable Bottles", Scott Chaplin, Resource Recycling, March 1991, pp.130-138. [7] Australian Bureau of Statistics - ABS 8207.1, 8204.1, 8359.0 [8] "The South Australian Beverage Container Act, 1975 - A Summary of its Functions and Success", Beverage Container Unit, Department of Environment and Planning, December 1991. [9] "Recycling - Volume II: Recycling of Products", Industry Commission, Report No. 6, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra, February 1991. [10] "Beverage Container Deposit Legislation", Natural Resources and Environment Committee, Parliament of Victoria, September 1984. [11] From information provided by Allan McCarthy, Factory Manager, United Dairies (14 June 1990) - confirmed by the NSW Dairy Corporation (12 March 1992). [12] "There's something you can do", Clean up Australia, Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency, 1992. [13] European Economic Community Directive 85/339, UK Data 1986, A Report for INCPEN (Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment) - I. Boustead and G.F. Hancock, The Open University, August 1989. [14] "A Comparative Environmental Study of Packaging Alternatives for Liquid-Food Products", Commissioned by the Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers Inc., Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, April 1991. [15] "Deposits on Beverage Containers", Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, December 1974. [16] "Energy Requirement Comparison for Refillable and Non-Refillable Bottles in SA", G Penno, Pollution Management Division, South Australian Department of Environment and Planning, April 1987. [17] "The Economic Effects of Bottle Bills", D Scott and W Moore, State Government (US) Vol 57, No. 2. [18] "Comments on BRRU Report Information Paper No. 14 'Container Deposit Legislation'", Australian Consumers' Association. [19] "Review of Information Paper No. 14 of the Business Regulation Review Unit, Container Deposit Legislation and the Control of Litter and Waste", J Hatch, Centre for South Australian Economic Studies, June 1990. [20] "A Study of the Economic Impact of the South Australian Beverage Container Act 1975-76", South Australian Department of the Environment, March 1980. [21] Based on milk and container pricing information provided by Robert Tylor, NSW Dairy Corporation, 12 March 1992. [22] C McLachlan, Australian Financial Review, 6 July 1989. [23] "Greenweek", 6 February 1990. [24] Determined from figures reported in "Kerbside Quarterly", October 1992, and from volume/weight values established by [29]. [25] Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 1990. [26] Australian Financial Review, 7 May 1991. [27] Seattle Solid Waste Utility study, September 1991. [28] "Beverage Container Deposits in the 90s", Container Recycling Institute, Washington DC, March 1992. [29] BHP, Domestic Waste Analysis, Lucas Heights Landfill, 30/9/91 to 11/10/91. THANKS Thanks to the following businesses for contributing towards the printing costs of the original report: Aquarius Springs Aussie Water Blue Mountains Water Company Country Spring Water Company Down Under Springs Environmental Resources Pty Ltd Eureka Springwater Fountainhead Pure Source Water John Philp's Fairlight Welcome Mart Macro Wholefoods Neverfail Spring Water Company The Cleanhouse Effect ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Report Design & Layout by Peter Hopper Foreword by Robyn Williams Cover by Stephan McAlpine Paper from Ecopaper ph: 02 9565 1140 Printing by Breakout ph: 02 9281 5100 Printed on Australian 100% Recycled Paper. Web Report Web Design & Layout by Peter Hopper Transmitted using Re-usable Electrons.