Cameron considers reintroducing the 'money back bottle'
Those of a certain age will remember fondly the profitable pastime of taking empty ?pop? bottles back to the shop to collect cash refunds.
As well as supplementing youngsters? pocket money, the system helped keep litter down and encouraged green habits long before recycling became a buzzword.
Now David Cameron is considering bringing back deposit refunds on bottles and drink cans as environmental concerns take on a new urgency.
Better than a real bank? 'Money back' bottles are fondly remembered
Consumers would be charged an extra 15p on drink cans, glass and plastic bottles that hold less than a pint and 30p on anything larger on the basis they would get the money back when the container was returned.
Mr Cameron told the House of Commons yesterday that he is supportive of the proposal by the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
The organisation publishes a report today claiming that it would be cheap and simple to set up.
But supermarkets and other stores are fighting to kill the idea, arguing it is expensive, bureaucratic and would not improve existing council recycling schemes.
Deposit refunds were commonplace until the 1980s. Children and charity groups would raise large sums for good causes through mass collections and street clean-ups.
Similar schemes are making a comeback around the world, including in many U.S. states, such as New York, as well as South Australia, Germany, Sweden and Denmark.
Mr Cameron told MPs during Prime Minister?s Questions the idea was ?very interesting? and he highlighted the success of the idea in other countries.
?I will certainly ask Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne to look at this and see if we can take it forward,? he said.
CPRE research suggests the scheme would cost ?84million to set up, plus ?700million a year in running costs.
However, almost ?500million would be covered by deposits paid on bottles that are never returned. The remaining ?200million would have to be met by drinks manufacturers.
If this price was passed on to the public, it would add just under a penny ? 0.7p ? to the price of each can or bottle.
The CPRE said the scheme would save councils some ?160million a year by reducing collection and disposal costs. Litter would also be dramatically cut.
Its president, Bill Bryson, added: ?What sensible nation would not want to capture and recycle its precious and finite resources?
'What discerning people would not want to enjoy a litter-free environment??
However, the British Retail Consortium claimed deposit refunds would undermine existing recycling schemes, such as kerb collections by councils, and would make no difference to litter, as drinks containers make up less than 0.5 per cent of rubbish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 years on, return of the 'money back bottle' | Mail Online
Those of a certain age will remember fondly the profitable pastime of taking empty ?pop? bottles back to the shop to collect cash refunds.
As well as supplementing youngsters? pocket money, the system helped keep litter down and encouraged green habits long before recycling became a buzzword.
Now David Cameron is considering bringing back deposit refunds on bottles and drink cans as environmental concerns take on a new urgency.
Better than a real bank? 'Money back' bottles are fondly rememberedConsumers would be charged an extra 15p on drink cans, glass and plastic bottles that hold less than a pint and 30p on anything larger on the basis they would get the money back when the container was returned.
Mr Cameron told the House of Commons yesterday that he is supportive of the proposal by the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
The organisation publishes a report today claiming that it would be cheap and simple to set up.
But supermarkets and other stores are fighting to kill the idea, arguing it is expensive, bureaucratic and would not improve existing council recycling schemes.
Deposit refunds were commonplace until the 1980s. Children and charity groups would raise large sums for good causes through mass collections and street clean-ups.
Similar schemes are making a comeback around the world, including in many U.S. states, such as New York, as well as South Australia, Germany, Sweden and Denmark.
Mr Cameron told MPs during Prime Minister?s Questions the idea was ?very interesting? and he highlighted the success of the idea in other countries.
?I will certainly ask Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne to look at this and see if we can take it forward,? he said.
CPRE research suggests the scheme would cost ?84million to set up, plus ?700million a year in running costs.
However, almost ?500million would be covered by deposits paid on bottles that are never returned. The remaining ?200million would have to be met by drinks manufacturers.
If this price was passed on to the public, it would add just under a penny ? 0.7p ? to the price of each can or bottle.
The CPRE said the scheme would save councils some ?160million a year by reducing collection and disposal costs. Litter would also be dramatically cut.
Its president, Bill Bryson, added: ?What sensible nation would not want to capture and recycle its precious and finite resources?
'What discerning people would not want to enjoy a litter-free environment??
However, the British Retail Consortium claimed deposit refunds would undermine existing recycling schemes, such as kerb collections by councils, and would make no difference to litter, as drinks containers make up less than 0.5 per cent of rubbish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 years on, return of the 'money back bottle' | Mail Online
Comment