131–140 of 195 posts
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.
Someone else did though, so the 10 cents is paid in full.
Well, sorta. The cost is covered because many bottle deposits end up going unclaimed. But nobody paid 10 cents for that bottle .
As an Oregonian, I think the biggest contributor is definitely bumping the redemption value from 5 cents to 10 cents. At that price, it makes it economically viable for the homeless population to spend lots of time going around and gathering every available bottle. In my neighborhood, I even have homeless people digging through my recycling bins every few hours rummaging for bottles to cash in!
Why is it okay to pay less than minimum wage and deny benefits to what are essentially misclassified sanitation workers?
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…
I had to laugh at myself, because my first thought was that it's related to the efforts of the swelling numbers of the homeless. That's basically a joke out of thin air mind you, not a "statement," so please don't bother refuting or confirming. One thing's for sure -- and this was discussed when China first reneged on recycling the plastics: Commingled recycling at the curb has been a disaster. In my opinion, predict…
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…
"Drowning"? Are people dying? Are these grocery stores going out of business? What's the real fear here? That this Senator hasn't had her name in the papers in a while?
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.
As an Oregonian, I think the biggest contributor is definitely bumping the redemption value from 5 cents to 10 cents. At that price, it makes it economically viable for the homeless population to spend lots of time going around and gathering every available bottle. In my neighborhood, I even have homeless people digging through my recycling bins every few hours rummaging for bottles to cash in!
I think it can eventually have some unintended consequences though. A few years back I visited Calgary and saw signs in parking lots warning people not to leave bottles in their car due to the risk of people breaking car windows just to steal bottles for their redemption value. Alberta has a 10 cent deposit for cans and bottles under 1L and 25 cent deposit for bottles over 1L. Hard to believe people would smash car w…
I live in Michigan and I hate the bottle deposits. I would strongly prefer just putting bottles in recycling. Bottle deposit machines break down frequently, the machines fill up, they only take cans sold at the store you bought them from, that part of the store smells bad and is dirty and sticky, and the cans take up a non-trivial amount of space in your home.
I just stick everything in regular recycling.
I would guess homeless people are the only reason it's anywhere near 90%. Everyone I know does curb side recycling.
As an Oregonian, I think the biggest contributor is definitely bumping the redemption value from 5 cents to 10 cents. At that price, it makes it economically viable for the homeless population to spend lots of time going around and gathering every available bottle. In my neighborhood, I even have homeless people digging through my recycling bins every few hours rummaging for bottles to cash in!
Why is it okay to pay less than minimum wage and deny benefits to what are essentially misclassified sanitation workers?