this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
366 points (98.2% liked)

News

31410 readers
2778 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 68 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Wow. This has been a thing in Canada for as long as I can remember. And I am, for Lemmy, damn near antediluvian.

[–] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

We've had it in California for forever as well (hello fellow old person!) but it was only for aluminum soda/beer/sparkling water cans, plastic soda bottles and glass beer bottles. This measure is adding wine bottles, pouches and boxes, liquor bottles and juice jugs.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Knowing you're a fellow old makes your username that much better, I now love it.

Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense. I'm unsure how long we've been able to recycle those here. I'd assume for always but be not entirely surprised were that not the case.

[–] rab@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago

In Canada, if it's 'ready to drink' you can get the deposit back. So no coffee creamers or concentrated stock for example.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not all across Canada. Different provinces = different rules ... ie: Manitoba has zero recycling for wine and liquor bottles (except for blue bin recycling).

[–] rab@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

Just another reason to never live in Winnipeg

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well, til!

That's wild, I wonder why not/if it's a conservative thing somehow?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Shh, they're trying to catch up

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 40 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] HootinNHollerin@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The CEO and CTO duo of success

[–] WhyYesZoidberg@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Mooothers day!

[–] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (4 children)

We've had this for plastic bottles forever here in Norway.

[–] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago

Same in California for most beverage cans and bottles. It's specifically the wine and liquor containers that are new.

[–] timkmz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Same in Germany+glass beer bottles. But still not on other alcohol lol

[–] BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Maybe they don't want you to come back to the store after you emptied that vodka bottle.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago

Same for Finland.

[–] Rootiest@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

It's also common in many states including California for cans, plastic bottles, and many glass bottles but this particular measure adds more types like wine and liquor bottles and pouches

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Where though? I haven’t seen cash refund kiosks for years.

[–] neurogenesis@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Moving from CA to a place with no aluminum recycling was initially weird, then my city completely stopped picking up all recycling... because staff shortages, so the world is full of surprises (guess what else they outlawed here..)

[–] hpca01@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] neurogenesis@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oh, nah, something about womens bodies... pretty wack

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Here in Germany we have Pfand system to return our bottles and get our cash back since 2003.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In my Canadian province, a mandatory deposit has been in place since 1970. I didn't even realize this wasn't standard elsewhere.

[–] FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They are introducing this in Ireland in 2024. Starting with cans and hard plastic containers. I think it's a great idea. I do hope they expand it to include glass bottles though.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

As a German let me tell you it's great. It always feels good to get money for bringing back empty stuff

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 2 points 2 years ago

Hello Pfand friend

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Aren't you just paying a deposit when you buy the item and then you get that money back when you return the empty bottle or can?

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Basically yeah but since it has always been like that it's never on the mind.

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Coca cola in particular had been lobbying against these systems for decades. People buy less if the cost is higher, so instead they want their dumb packaging to be spread everywhere.

Beautiful profit interest saves us all

[–] crsu@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's a quarter for boxed wine!! Really though, this title is misleading. It should say "California Redemption Value deposit charge to be added to liquor and juice containers starting in January."

They add it to the price of the product at checkout, it's a "deposit" that you are able to get back if you want to save up your containers and drive them to the recycling center.

I see this mostly benefiting people who make a few dollars a day digging through public (and not so public) trash receptacles looking for things with CRV to turn in.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It pisses me off that we have to pay any fee at all when we aren't the ones who choose a product's packaging.

Companies should be paying the whole thing ... including recycling costs. Then maybe they'd start packaging responsibly.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

For things that can't be recycled, I would agree. But if it can be, then it still needs to be brought to a recycling facility to make that happen. Without this incentive, a lot more of it will end up in landfills.

[–] Electromechanical_Supergiant@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If the companies had to pay per bottle, do you really think they'd still be using single use packaging like that?

They'd install refill stations in stores and sell you a reusable bottle that you can fill up from their metered tap at the refill station.

Companies created the problem of single use packaging; the onus is not on individuals to solve a problem created by companies.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not if it costs more to develop, install, and maintain a refill system. Much more likely they would just raise the price to the consumer anyway.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If gov'ts had kept on top of the companies and created prohibitive rules around single-use plastics (and chemical use ... see PFOS/PFAS) in the 70's, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Instead they just let companies do whatever they wanted 'cause capitalism is god.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

And now it's so far gone that doing the bare minimum for the environment is great for their image so let's dump more money into advertising that than actually making a meaningful change.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

If the companies had to pay per bottle, do you really think they’d still be using single use packaging like that?

If it's the same 5/10/25c per container, then they very likely will. Consumers have already decided that this price is worth paying for the convenience, so it makes little difference if companies paid this and passed on the cost to consumer, or if it's transparently shown as a separate reimbursable fee. In the end, all the costs get passed on to consumers and it's left to us to vote with our wallets. I think the main issue is that the cost of producing containers doesn't reflect the true long term cost, and the solution to that is probably to impose a tax based on the amount of material used. That way, consumers making the choice that's right for them will also mean making the choice that's right for everyone else.

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Glass and metal are pretty reusable 😅

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Challenge accepted.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

I was trading empty bottles and jars for some money since I was a kid in Estonia. That system is older than the Russian Federation.

load more comments
view more: next ›