Jump to content

Talk:Container-deposit legislation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exporting bottles to a different US state

[edit]

I think a reference to the seinfeld episode where kramer and neuman drive a truck full of bottles across state lines should be made 66.75.250.202

I've wondered how big a crime this is. That aspect should probably be added to the US portion of the article. DirectorStratton 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC) In Maine, where i live it is a state law to redem bottles from out of state for money. It's a real issue in the grocery store where i work because we get a lot of customers from New Hampshire which is next door and does not have redemption. Since this is the first store this company has done in Maine they are still working out the kinks. DyloniusFunk (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Tanqueray 08:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Locally, it's a nuisance here in Suth Australia ( deposits paid)when residents from Victoria ( no deposits) bring in large quantities & cash in, at the SA taxpayer's expense ![reply]

It is actually illegal and things are being done to try and put people off, as this ABC news article says: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/12/10/2442469.htm?site=southeastsa Wonx2150 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything being done to raise the deposit? None of the deposits have changed in the past 25 years... they should easily be a quarter or more by now. If they made it a dollar I'd bet every single bottle would be recycled.

South Australia increased it to 10c a year or to ago and thats boosted it a lot. Wonx2150 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Australia : juices exempt ?

[edit]

I am pretty sure juices are not covered by CDL here in SA, a juice producing State , where the growers/producers may resist price increases ! I will check ...Feroshki (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a 600mL PET juice bottle in front of me, and they are not exempt. You might be being mislead because it's only single-use sized bottles (eg, 600mL) which are subject to the CDL and not multiple-use bottles (such as 2L of milk and juice). 202.158.193.49 (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

[edit]

" The popular demand for a deposit on aluminium cans to reduce littering in the nature led to legislation in 1984, possibly the world's earliest." - I'm guessing that this sentence refers to Sweden, as it's the subject of the immediately prior sentence - however, "possibly ..." is inaccurate as demonstrated by the years cited in the US section. Irish Melkite (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

Some organisations (such as Kringloop Blik[1]) have argued against providing value refund money for cans. I'm not convinced by their arguments but I do see one other argument: people could, rather than disposing their cans at home in a regular PMD bag, sell their cans for refund value money. That may not seem like a big problem (both methods would ensure the cans are recycled, and do not end up in nature) but on the other hand it does ensure a big financial strain on the countries' waste management/recycling system as a whole. As such, it might mean that on the recycling of other materials, the country would need to become less good (and spend less), so environmental damage could still occur this way.

For the price difference: a person needs to pay 0,24 euro per PMD bag (60 liter)[2] whereas a bag of cans refunded at a center can easily mean 10 euro for the person (a 60 liter bag may easily hold 100 cans, so that's 10 euro, easily; might hold a lot more if cans are crushed). If a large number of bags are transported at once with your car, fuel costs would not reduce this earnings by that much.

I think the best option here would thus be to simply no longer make people pay for these PMD bags, and even give them some money for a full bag (if sorted to only contains cans any more), even when collected at home by civic services -say 5 euro or so-. This would make less people go trough the trouble of physicallt transporting the cans at a refund center. 81.242.228.150 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://kringloopblik.nl/geen-statiegeld-op-blik
  2. ^ http://www.ivago.be/thuisafval/ophaling/zakken

Other US States With Bottle/Can Returns

[edit]
I found an Aloe bottle last year that had the states of Delaware (DE), Florida (FL), and Louisiana (LA) on the return deposit section. I don't get this, though. Florida and Louisiana don't do the Bottle bill and Delaware stop doing it years ago. Could someone please explain this to me? --75.68.122.13 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Container deposit legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Container deposit legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Container deposit legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Container deposit legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Container deposit legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Diannaa:, hi, thanks for warning me about the copyvio. I should have paid better attention to the fact that the 2010 Hogg et al. report was written by a private company (Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd) rather than a governmental agency or non-profit (which CPRE is) as I assumed. It was wrong to just copypaste texts from the report without checking the licence (which I normally do). I've resolved to scrap the return rate, deposit, and redemption site columns because they are both likely to be regarded as copyvios (if these figures come from Eunomia's own research) as well as being outdated. The legislation itself is PD, can be verified from multiple independent sources and is unlikely to change. I've added two sources (Schneider et al. 2011 from the EU External Affairs agency, and Letcher 2020, a scholarly work) to independently verify the Hogg 2010 report's information (as this is therefore public knowledge and not plagiarism), referenced every statement, and thorougly reworded whatever text of Hogg there was left (to avoid plagiarism). (Note that Schneider et al. 2011 frequently cite Eunomia 2009 and especially Eunomia 2011, but Hogg et al. 2010 is Eunomia 2010, so I'm also not violating Eunomia 2010's copyright through Schneider et al. 2011, if that were even possible). The rewrite is complete as far as I'm concerned, but if more needs to be changed I'm quite willing to do what must be done. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's still overlap with the source. For example, Germany: source says, "Einwegpfand Deposit on one-way a standard amount, deposit on refillables manufacturer dependent, not legally specified, though tend to be similar." Your addition: "Standard Einwegpfand (one-way deposit) amount on nonrefillables. Refillable deposits are not legally specified but manufacturer-dependent, but are usually similar". You've presented the same ideas in the same order using almost identical wording. It's not enough to just substitute a few words - content has to be completely re-written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I understand. I've removed more potentially copyrighted material. Is it okay now? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C marked the section as 'has been rewritten', so this issue has been resolved. Thanks for explaining Diannaa! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Container-deposit_legislation&oldid=1201116711"