81–90 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone paid those 10 cents, though... And then didn't return the bottle. As long as returns are <100%, I don't think it matters who bought the bottle.
They didn't pay the 10 cents if they bought the bottle in a state with a smaller deposit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no doubt some significant overhead to the program, that is likely modeled as being covered in part by the "slippage" of bottles that don't get returned. Fraudulent returns cut into that allowance, even before the redemption rate hits 100%.
How does the Oregon program "know" if a returned bottle is bona fide or fraudulent (from out of state)? I don't see how substituting units of a fungible quantity, which identical bottles seem to be, can have the consequences you suggest.
Just a small amount of "excess" returns (bottles for which OBRC did not initially collect the dime, but pays out the dime) can push the overall program into the red. In the example above, only a 3% increase in return rate (from 80 to 83%) pushes the program into the red.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Living in California, I've never once redeemed a bottle. I toss it into the recycling bin.
I don't think there are places in the city to take them. You need a car.
I'm fortunate that I am within walking distance, but I do "save up" the bottles to make the walk -- and haul -- "worth it".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Head to the midwest. No one wants to run a recycling operation. You'll see people throw away plastics, metals, and glass all the time. Recycle bins are hard to find when you don't live in a city.
People return bottles and cans in Michigan, though, because of the 10 cent deposit and the fact you can return them directly to any store that sells the product. Not having to go to a recycling center is huge. They are generally picked up and, presumably, recycled, by the bottler.
The law that established the excise tax on the bottles has a clause that basically reduces the tax relative to the sellers redemption rate, so the stores have a financial reason to accept the bottles, as the excise tax is higher than the cost of participating in a recycling program.
Growing up in California, I assumed the bottle deposit system was a federal thing. Moving to North Carolina and seeing people causally throw away glass bottles into the trash was definitely a cultural shock for me. Kudos to Oregon for doing this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no doubt some significant overhead to the program, that is likely modeled as being covered in part by the "slippage" of bottles that don't get returned. Fraudulent returns cut into that allowance, even before the redemption rate hits 100%.
How does the Oregon program "know" if a returned bottle is bona fide or fraudulent (from out of state)? I don't see how substituting units of a fungible quantity, which identical bottles seem to be, can have the consequences you suggest.
If there really was a problem I'd expect to see a different barcode for cans/bottles sold in Oregon vs other states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How does the Oregon program "know" if a returned bottle is bona fide or fraudulent (from out of state)? The program doesn't on a per bottle bases, but the effectiveness at dealing with the problem the program aims to solve (local landfilling recyclable containers) is impacted by the substitution; in the context of the function served, imported bottles that would not otherwise be imported are not fungible with local…
If return rate hits 100% then it's a success IMO. Oregan has then successfully ensured that for every bottle used in their state that they also recycle one. Does it matter if it's a non-Oregan bottle?
Insofar as part of the purpose is local waste stream diversion (because landfilling has costs), yes.
It's true that the local cost is coupled with a remote benefit, but remote benefits have less value, ceteris paribus, to the people paying the costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some spillover from Washington or California, but I doubt that it can be an incredibly high percentage. Why do you doubt that it could be a high percentage? A huge number of folks live in Vancouver across the OR/WA border and commute into Portland every day, and do their shopping in OR for the lack of sales tax.
You just said it. They do their shopping in Oregon. So they probably buy the bottles their tax free. Save ten cents on tax, spend it on deposit. It's a wash to the consumer.
There is fear that some significant portion of the recent increase in redemption rate may be due to fraud. Oregon recently increased the redemption from 5 cents to 10 cents, but the neighboring state of Washington still does not have a deposit. This creates an incentive for people to scavenge bottles in Washington and return them across the border in Oregon. Here's a recent article about the problem: "Oregon senator…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How does the Oregon program "know" if a returned bottle is bona fide or fraudulent (from out of state)? The program doesn't on a per bottle bases, but the effectiveness at dealing with the problem the program aims to solve (local landfilling recyclable containers) is impacted by the substitution; in the context of the function served, imported bottles that would not otherwise be imported are not fungible with local…
If return rate hits 100% then it's a success IMO. Oregan has then successfully ensured that for every bottle used in their state that they also recycle one. Does it matter if it's a non-Oregan bottle?
If Oregon returns hit 100%, leaving no funds to pay for the program, the program isn't likely to continue without state taxpayer funding (currently, it's funded from the program itself and not the state's taxpayers).