The cost of drinks largely hasn't increased in line with inflation, so you'd very quickly arrive at an unsustainable situation where returning a can/bottle would give you more money than it cost you to buy it.
It can never give you more than it cost — the redemption value gets added to the cost of the beverage. So a $1 bottle of Coke would cost $1.05 if the redemption value were 5¢ And it would cost $1.50 if the redemption value were 50¢.
The reason the redemption value has not gone up much is that people would balk at paying so much for the goods upfront, IMO. Adding 20¢ per can would add nearly $5 to the cost of a 24-pack or soda. The cost per ounce of soda drops dramatically when you buy in volume, so the redemption value would grow to be a substantial portion of the total cost for larger purchases.
You're right that they won't give up drinking soda! But the experience of Philadelphia, [1] which imposed a per-ounce soda tax (later repealed) shows us that these tend to drive consumers to other jurisdictions (NJ) to buy groceries. This means Philadelphia lost out not only on soda sales, but also on other groceries purchased at the same time.
Another issue that arises is that people will actually transport recyclables across state lines to arbitrage the differences in redemption value. [2] This only happens if there are large enough disparities, but in the US this is almost certain to happen due to the different policy choices made by nearby states.
The thing I don't get about US though......people keep pointing out that US States are as big if not bigger than most European countries - and over there companies somehow manage to create completely unique packaging for every country, distribute their product and keep stock of what's where. Why not in the US? If this sort of thing is enough of an issue, why not make sure that each state gets different barcode, or slightly different label or whatever, to make sure the bottles are not returnable between state lines?
Germany pays a lot more for cans and bottles than Poland does, but you can't return Polish bottles and cans in German stores because the barcodes and labels are different - you can cross the border without any issue, but there is no way to exploit the economic imbalance in recyclables returns.
While I see your point about how to solve this problem, why is this even a problem "worth" solving? Going back to the nuts and bolts: are the bottles and cans any different between countries? What is exactly protected from accepting "foreign" recyclable materials? In a free market, if people start dropping over the border to recycle, local price would quickly match up to avoid people having to make the trip (somebody would make a business out of it, and then original deposit price would soon match up with where it's more expensive).
It rather seems to be the other way around: it's easier to devise a system where you go by something unique and country-specific like a bar-code (to avoid counterfeiting business), so that's why it's like that (of course, there's also living standard difference between countries).
Still, even if there was an incentive discrepancy, it's easy for all the countries to match upward since this is basically just "loaning" bottles/cans out, and you only need to pay out "once" for your regular supply of whatever drinks you like to get, and after that, you are just re-starting the "loan".
FWIW, it's been like that in Serbia since forever, but only for the same product where the producer cared (you'd get an entire beer case, and then once you are through it, you bring it back to the store, and pick up another one): this allowed them to keep the price down and get more turnaround for their drinks.
I sure prefer the legal framework that allows returning it regardless of the specifics (producer or such).
This did actually happen with bottled water- New York State started charging 5-cent deposits on plastic disposable bottled water, and so now some bottled-water companies sell bottles in non-deposit states with different labeling and barcodes. That seems like an exception though, since it's not often the case with other deposit beverages.
The weird one to me is that- due to various archaic laws- in New York state carbonated hard cider in cans or bottles is not considered the same as other carbonated alcoholic beverages in cans, and is exempt from all the deposits. I'm a bit surprised they haven't changed that one.
No one drove to NJ for groceries, the $5 bridge toll would offset any gains. You’d drive to one of the surrounding counties in PA, provided you lived close enough for the trip to make sense. According to that paper, that happened in about 50% of sales, which is still a net win in terms of reduced consumption.
Very little is “lost” to the city when that happens, because groceries are tax exempt.
Not sure what you think happened with property taxes, but there was no rash of store closings. Due to consumers periodically bulk buying soda at a different chain outlet or otherwise.
when it's a 100% rebate for the vast majority of people i think it does? the money doesn't go to the state, it goes to the organisation that handles the recycling, and you get a 100% rebate for doing the normal thing
In California the money goes from bottlers to a state agency and the program is essentially used to fund curbside recycling programs. The costs get passed down to consumers. While it’s indirect, it’s essentially a government service you’re taxed for that you pay either with your wallet or your labor.
Additionally, since the deposit is not exempted from sales tax, the consumer also pays more sales tax than they would otherwise.
In Finland the deposit is 0.15€ per can. You quickly learn to calculate that out when coming with cost per litre... So it only takes some getting used to.
The math a bit tougher than that. The volume of soda bottles is different now than in 1980. And most bottles aren’t glass, but plastic. Even the glass ones use different glass and cans use different amounts of aluminum. I agree that deposit values haven’t kept pace, but there are more variables at play.
I doubt the volume of the soda bottle affects the cost to the manufacturer much. Soda prices are rarely linear to their size. At my local supermarket a 2-liter bottle from the aisle is typically cheaper than a 20oz from the fridge by the register.
For plastic, you’re right. I think they use the same blanks for multiple sizes of bottles. For glass bottles, I’m not so sure. I don’t remember many plastic bottles in the 1980s. They were coming, but I still have glass in my head for all but 2L bottles at the time (but I was really young). But the point is the majority of bottles you’d see for recycling would have been glass (or cans) at that time. And the amount of materials used for packaging was different back then.
For one, it would increase the attractiveness of fraud where the same bottle is sold in multiple jurisdictions with different deposit rates. Instead of collecting trash across the border, buy cans there by the truckload, bring them back across state lines, empty them and redeem them for the "deposit" you never paid.
Of course, there are some plausible technological or political solutions to this. But it does change the economics.
This is how it works in Germany. You pay a deposit on every bottle. To get your money back requires a machine to recognise each bottle/can as legitimate, based on the bar code.
Now, yes, people could print stickers with fake bar codes on… but I don’t think that would work well at the scale of the major fraud operation you’re envisaging…
I live in Finland, it has this system, the UK where I’m from does not, you just squash your cans and bottles into a weekly recycling collection.
It’s the ‘squash’ bit that I miss and makes me hate the deposit system. You have to keep the cans all fully intact, so the machine can read the barcode, so you have to give up stacks of room in your house and carry an awkward big bag of mostly air around to return them.
Do you know if they need the cans in their original shape in order to recycle them? If it's just to keep the barcode intact, presumably it could be printed on the can's base instead.
That’s one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a while.
You sort of have to lay the can sideways on a belt and it spins it around before scanning the barcode, then it carries it to the appropriate bin internally (where it gets crushed). In my opinion it’s a waste of time, the machines are sticky and smelly and I feel sorry for the staff who have to go and un-jam them regularly, but on the upside you won’t see any littering around the place (well, in summer you will - it’s socially acceptable just to toss them on the ground but someone will be along to pick it up within minutes)
After the can gets accepted by the machine it gets crushed and sold in bulk to a 3rd party. That 3rd party is buying and selling by weigh and is usually the one who's usually getting the government check. So all barcodes do is reduce casual fraud. The pros are already injecting it higher up the supply chain.
Do they use a different bar code on bottles sold in Germany to those sold by the same producer in bordering countries? That's something American producers generally don't do for different states (yet?) - they use the same label and write the relevant deposit amount for every state on the bottle.
There’s a beer I like that’s cheaper and easier to order direct from the Danish brewery than buy from the alcohol monopoly in Finland. The cans look identical. Of course I tried putting them in the return machine, but it would not credit them (although they’ll still take them in for recycling)
People also buy huge quantities of beer personally from Estonia (2 hr boat ride, nice day trip) and the system would probably collapse in a day if they paid for cans from anywhere.
I crush any that I know won’t give money before putting them with the household metal recycling collection as I don’t want some poor soul wasting their time fishing them out and returning them.
In Sweden, and probably most of Europe as far as I would guess, the European/International Article Number [1] barcode system is used. It encodes the country first, so yes.
You cannot get cash from foreign cans or PET bottles, since the deposit was not paid here.
The EAN definitely doesn't indicate the country where the product was sold. In your Swedish supermarket, I expect you'll find plenty of products with Danish or German EANs (certainly that's the case in Ireland).
As your linked article says, "The first three digits of the EAN-13 (GS1 Prefix) usually identify the GS1 Member Organization which the manufacturer has joined (not necessarily where the product is actually made)"
Yes, they are different between Germany and Austria, which otherwise share labeling for everything - the water and juice bottles I bought while skiing in Austria were rejected for return when I got home to Germany, despite being from brands also widely sold here.
Isn't arbitrage like that just how markets are supposed to work? Still ends up with the cans redeemed and disposed, just goes about it in such a way that the maximum amount of value is extracted from them.
No. This is almost the opposite of a market-based system. Aluminium cans are artificially made available only at tens or hundreds of times their cost to produce.
> Aluminium cans are artificially made available only at tens or hundreds of times their cost to produce.
You forgot externalized costs... add the cost of cleaning up after irresponsible people leaving behind their cans wherever they want or the added costs and pollution of making a can from fresh aluminium ore (bauxite), and suddenly that "ten or hundred times" becomes "at cost".
Deposits are a regulatory way to account for externalized costs, at least to a bit.
The deposit has nothing to do with the dirtiness of mining. It's so that people like you don't see a can blowing in the wind.
If it were about the mining the deposit would be on everything else made of aluminum too.
Of all the things to let into the environment aluminum is one of the least worst. As with everything else, it's yet another story about how narratives, marketing, knee jerk reactions and bike shedding are the name of the game when it comes to public policy.
The reason the redemption value has not gone up much is that people would balk at paying so much for the goods upfront, IMO. Adding 20¢ per can would add nearly $5 to the cost of a 24-pack or soda. The cost per ounce of soda drops dramatically when you buy in volume, so the redemption value would grow to be a substantial portion of the total cost for larger purchases.