News

The Campaign to Protect Rural England last month called on the government to introduce a 10p deposit on drinks packaging to reduce the amount of litter that ends up in the countryside

Bill Bryson
Author and chair of the Campaign to Protect Rural England



YES

Yes, most definitely. Plastic bottles and cans are a significant part of the litter that is becoming the default condition of our countryside.

The worsening nature of the litter problem is highlighted by the recent annual survey of local authorities carried out for the government by Keep Britain Tidy, which indicates that a large and increasing proportion of all litter dropped is beverage-related.

In Iowa in the 1970s when a drinks pack deposit was introduced, the litter was dramatically reduced almost overnight and there is evidence that it works elsewhere, in Australia and Europe. More than £650m of taxpayers’ money is spent annually cleaning up litter across England; surely it could be better spent on any number of other things? We need people to stop dropping litter, but we also need stronger government leadership – considering incentives such as a drinks deposit system should be part of that.

---

 

Jane Bickerstaffe
Director
Incpen



NO

I’m fully behind anti-litter campaigns, but putting a deposit on drinks containers is a piecemeal approach to preventing littering because it would be an impossible task to collect a cash deposit on all other littered items such as newspapers, fag ends and food. In any case, only 1% of litter is drinks containers.

Drinks manufacturers such as Coca-Cola and GlaxoSmithKline are increasingly sending their containers to recycling systems. If a deposit were put on the bottles and cans, it would divert them out of recycling and into deposit schemes, undermining kerbside collection, and it would increase the environmental impact by doubling the amount of lorries on the roads. It doesn’t add up when we’re trying to reduce emissions and encourage consumers to recycle.

Littering is a behavioural problem and the solution should be a comprehensive approach to keeping places clean – educating consumers that it is anti-social to drop litter.

---

Rebecca Cocking
Recycling manager
British Glass



MAYBE

I think the Campaign to Protect Rural England is mixing up the various deposit schemes.

In a Green Dot-type scheme, the manufacturer pays for the container to be collected and recycled. The consumer does not pay a deposit on the container and cannot claim cash back upon returning it.

A deposit scheme to encourage recycling by retailers would divert waste previously recycled by local authorities. While this might dissuade the public from littering, it could create more problems as shops are not practical places for collecting or storing waste.

There are also environmental negatives to transporting containers involved in deposit schemes from one end of the country to the other.

Finally, there is also the question of how imported glass products would be accounted for in a deposit scheme, and the effect on UK manufacturers if imports were not included.

---

Dick Searle
Chief executive
Packaging Federation



NO

Dropping litter is a behavioural problem and is not confined to cans and bottles, and if you want to change behaviour, educating consumers is a better idea than bribing them. They need to understand the implications of littering.

A deposit of the kind suggested by the Campaign to Protect Rural England should be applied to everything, including free newspapers, rather than singling out drinks containers.

There would be hygiene and logistical issues for retailers with a deposit scheme – would the containers need to be separated into glass, plastic and cans so that they can then enter the normal waste stream for recycling?

In addition, how would the 10p deposit be returned to the consumer? What would happen with six-packs sold in supermarkets? Would this mean adding an extra 60p to the cost to the consumer?

A deposit scheme would add to inflation and this in turn could affect interest rates.