Frances Bula header image 2
← →

B.C.’s move to getting producers and stores to pay 100 per cent of recycling costs a complicated exercise and a debate over who will manage recycling

September 4th, 2012 · 32 Comments

When I went to Home Depot and bought a new toilet on the weekend, I noticed that among the various messages stamped on the outside of the box for my lovely Kohler item (made in Mexico, if I’m remembering correctly) was one boasting that this new model had been shipped with with far less packaging than was previously the case.

That’s the kind of message we’re going to be seeing in print, and in practice, at many more stores in the future here.

As I discovered only recently, B.C. is moving to a system of having producers and stores be 100 per cent financially responsible for recycling their products and packaging.

Their plan for accomplishing this by May 2014 is due this November. As I also discovered, it’s a complicated discussion with considerable debate over who should run recycling systems, if it’s companies that are going to be paying the bill.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Mark Allerton

    Seems like a missed opportunity not to have compared this proposal with the German “Grüner Punkt” scheme which has been adopted across Europe and is almost certainly the inspiration for this move.

    Interestingly, given the reservations that companies here have about how the money is spent, the green dot scheme allows companies to opt out of funding the common scheme – provided they arrange to collect the packaging themselves.

  • IanS

    Seems like a good idea, though enforcement is everything. I would hope that the appropriate safeguards be put in place to ensure that the recycling actually occurs and that funds are used for their intended purpsoe.

    I also sort of question Lake’s assertion that this will take the burden off the taxpayers. Even if that does occur, won’t the recycling costs just be built into the selling price for the products themselves? Viewed in that light, this looks more like a move towards a kind of user fee (ie. you buy the product; you pay for the recycling). Not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it’s naive to expect that the companies will bear the costs without passing them on.

  • Raingurl

    It is naive to think the companies wont build the cost in. After all, it’s all about their bottom line. The only reason companies are moving toward recycling/reducing is because the consumer demanded it. I tend to buy the item with less packaging most of the time. Look, for example, the tasty lettuce that comes in the hard plastic container. I don’t buy it. I buy heads of lettuce and mix my own greens. I don’t even use the plastic bags provided at the grocery store unless absolutely neccessary.

  • Ned

    FWIW, before 1989 all the Eastern European countries were waaay ahead of their western counterparts in recycling, of anything. That was the commy party line anyway.
    Now it’s the environment way in the West, obviously, all the costs associated with this are going to be carried by the consumer, not the producers or the retailers.
    I salute less packaging in anything, but I want to warn everyone of the many extra added taxes in the form of “Enviro taxes” that you are paying for right now:
    deposit + recycling fee beverages
    tax in gas
    “enviro” fees in all electronics, cd’s, dvd’s, TV’s, fridges, W&D’s you name it!
    They want you and companies to pay a tax on air… carbon offset crap.
    And all for naught.
    Most of the recycled materials end up in the general garbage dump (just ask how much 50-60%, what you didn’t know?) 🙂
    This kind of initiatives are oppressive to the point where they only advance more legislation, policy, bureaucracy and less democracy.
    Times where you have to prove a certain quota of recycled materials are around the corner… if we let them get that bad of course!
    Just wait and see.

  • Agustin

    @IanS: You’ve hit on an important point, IMHO. This is why I usually find it distracting to talk about “the taxpayer” or “the consumer” instead of “people”.

    I think the idea is that it would be more like a user fee, and that the competitive market would encourage packagers to use less packaging and thereby present a lower price.

  • IanS

    @Augustin #5,

    I agree. Or even make it a selling point (“We pay the recycling fee”).

    Generally, I think user fees are a good idea, as long as the revenues are properly utilized for their designated purpose.

  • waltyss

    There is no question that companies will pass on the cost of disposing of packaging when they can. However, when they can’t and also for competitive advantage, they will seek to reduce packaging which will lessen the pressure on our landfills. You already see it with bags when you purchase something.
    At the moment it may seem “free” but in fact the cost is passed onto the taxpayer rather than the beneficiary. The cost is in the form of landfill and garbage pickup and the like.

  • teririch

    ‘I think the idea is that it would be more like a user fee….’

    ****
    Somewhat like the ‘HST’ of enviro fees.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Something else to keep in mind is that the “user fee” may not be equal across a company’s product line.

    i.e. Company may sell tons of widget A which has minimal packaging but makes most of the profit and can absorb much of the company’s cost of doing business, including disposal fee cost.

    But Company may also carry widget B, but sells much less of it, has substantially more packaging but may bear no disposal fee cost, instead relying on Widget A consumers to carry the cost.

  • waltyss

    @ThinkOutsideABox
    If the fee is attached to products in some relation to the products packaging, it becomes more difficult to game the system. However, companies can always find a way to game the system if they are intent on doing so. Most however will follow the rules in good faith.

  • Agustin

    teririch,

    Somewhat like the ‘HST’ of enviro fees.

    I don’t follow. Can you explain?

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not thinking in terms of depicting moral, ethical or “feel good” attributes to how companies adjust to this new system.

    If we look at it in terms of Apple, their most profitable product is arguably the iPhone. It’s packaging is minimal compared to say their Mac Pro tower which is encased in foam inserts within a large box.

    But if the producer of the content that plays on the iPhone wants to use Apple’s Mac Pro platform to create that content, I’m sure they’d feel much better taking delivery of that computer in packaging that can best absorb shipping impacts on sensitive equipment.

    And if Apple wants to incentivize the creation of content by putting Mac Pros in the hands of producers, and can shift its cost of disposal to the greater consumer of the content vis a vis purchasers of the iPhone, is that really “gaming the system”? Why shouldn’t they?

    We could look at Frances’ toilet as an example as well I’m sure. But I don’t know Kohler product line well enough. 😛

  • waltyss

    @…Box, I didn’t suggest that using more packaging to handle sensitive equipment was gaming the system. However, if the product someone manufactures and sells requires more casing, then the disposal of that wrapping or casing should be borne by the manufacturer and the end user, not the taxpayer.

  • Sean Nelson

    @Ian #2: “won’t the recycling costs just be built into the selling price for the products themselves?”

    Well of course. What other way could there be?

    But this is a good thing. It means that packaging that carries a higher recycling cost will cost more, and that will dissuade consumers from buying it if there’s an alternative available. And the manufacturer has an incentive to use more sensible packaging because it will enable them to lower their price and be more competitive.

    Basically, it forces everyone to acknowledge the downstream cost of dealing with the packaging, and I don’t really see a downside to that.

  • IanS

    @Sean Nelson #14:

    Oh, I wasn’t saying it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite. I was questioning what I took to be the implied assertion that the costs would be borne by the sellers.

    As long as the amounts collected really are used to cover recycling costs, with a commensurate reduction in the burden to the taxpayers generally, I’m all for it.

  • Helen Spiegelman

    The more stuff you throw in a recycling container, the more it looks like a garbage can.
    BC headed down the right path a generation ago when we singled out beverage containers and forced producers to give consumers cash refunds for recycling. As a result, beverage containers have the highest recycling rate of any product or packaging.

    Meanwhile, Ontario and Manitoba listened to “Multi-Material” industry lobbyists like Allen Langdon’s MMBC, who created a monopolistic empire that completely controls recycling in those provinces (and is looking to take over recycling in the rest of North America). The “multi-material” recycling system is getting “pathetic” results, according to Ontario’s minister of environment.

    It’s time to send MMBC and Allen Langdon packing and expand our successful deposit system for recycling.

  • Bill

    While user fees are often an appropriate mechanism (healthcare would greatly benefit from a judicious use of user fees), I do not think the case can be made for them when dealing with packaging.

    Others have already made the point that making companies responsible for recycling is a transfer of costs between taxpayers and consumers since costs will generally be passed on to the consumer. Taxpayers are also consumers so the only change will be that those that consume more will pay more but I doubt this increased “fairness” can justify the cost of implementing and administering the user pay system. Progressives may also want to note that user fees are regressive since lower income people will pay a higher percentage of their disposable income to pay the user fees.

    Packaging is a high cost to producers so they ensure packaging is at the lowest cost so any change in packaging would likely be at a higher cost. Producers would likely find that the increase costs of changing packaging for a single market like metro Vancouver would exceed the additional costs of recycling and reductions in packaging likely to be minimal.

  • Agustin

    @ Bill, good point about low-income people bearing this burden.

    A better solution would be, as Helen suggests in #16, to have a refund system. (At least, in theory. In practice, logistics may be tricky.)

  • teririch

    @Agustin:

    The ‘user fee’, to me, seems to operate in a similar fashion to the HST – a consumption tax off loaded onto the consumer.

    What I would be curious to know: would or will retailers indicate what the recylcing fee is to the consumer – on the packaging, or on their bill?

  • waltyss

    @ bill. Any fee by its nature is regressive. Since the object of the exercise is to reduce the amount of packaging (and hence waste), in my view at least, that should be less of a concern.
    I am not sure how you implement a deposit system. Unlike cans or bottles, packaging comes in various shapes and sizes and you cannot expect people at depot to know for the myriad possiblilities whether all or even most is being returned to get the money refunded. It might work if you were able to return the packaging to the vendor for a refund. I doubt that vendors would embrace this however.

  • mezzanine

    @Bill 17

    I would agree with the judicious use of user fees. IMO this would fit this proposed recycling program well, but not other things like health care.

    An important point is that just by charging more for something, you affect the supply and demand, regardless of where the money goes. ie, producers will use less packaging, less-packed goods will be cheaper and have more demand. wrt to health care a user fee would limit people accessing it, for good reasons or bad reasons.

    BC’s carbon tax works simply by making carbon-based fuels more expensive, with money not going to any defined program, but to general revenue.

    kinda related to user fees/user pay/ companies paying for public-good services is the controversy over a small business tax in san francisco to pay for medical insurance for workers. The restaurant lobby was opposed to this and lists it as a separate item on a diner’s bill (as opposed to other business who include it in the cost of doing business). moreover, it seems that in some places they collect more than they pay out, with the resturant pocketing the difference.

    http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/09/22/sf-restaurants-cheat-health-care

  • Bill

    @agustin #18

    A deposit/refund system doesn’t solve this problem since the refund is just an incentive to get the consumer to return the item to a depot for recycling – there is still the cost over and above to run the depot and to dispose of the item returned.

    This initiative is just another in a long line of government shell games. Governments are caught between having proliferated an abundance of government services provided by high cost unionized labour (who are politically active) and the over taxed taxpayer who is finally saying “no” to more taxation to pay for these high cost services. The solution? Reduce services that cause the least taxpayer pain (stop cutting the grass) or off load them where the “tax” is not visible. (do you really think that municipal taxes will be reduced by the $60 – $100 million estimated by the minister?) Colllectively, the taxpayer/consumer will be the poorer for it.

  • mezzanine

    @waltyss 21,

    The assumption is that more affluent people simply consume more; more fancy things that have ++ packaging. and just consume more in general. in that way i see it as progressive, just like the HST.

  • Agustin

    @ teririch, re. HST. I see. I think there are differences in the nuances but I kind of see where you are coming from.

    @ Bill, re. deposit/refund. That’s a good point. With beer bottles, for instance, the difference is that the packaging is re-used instead of recycled (usually). Maybe more packagers can be encouraged to use re-usable packaging.

    (I don’t agree about this being a shell game, however. Used properly, taxes and fees can be used to improve our society. Just ask any economist.)

  • Bill

    @Agustin

    “Used properly, taxes and fees can be used to improve our society.”

    I totally agree with this – I did not infer that all user fees are a shell game (in fact I support health care user fees) but that many are when they do not result in a net benefit (and in the case of recycling all packagine will be a net cost) but succeed in hiding the cost from the taxpayer/consumer.

    The reuse of beer bottles is only economic for standard bottles – as bottle types proliferate so do sorting costs that when added to costs of cleaning (including the environmentaly friendly disposal of caustic cleaners) make the reuse a marginal proposition. Reuseable packaging for a broad range of products would be a non starter.

  • gman

    Oh my,not another crisis……but dont worry we can be saved as long as we dig into our wallets again the powers that be will make it all better.Why not do what people used to do,if you dont like the products packaging dont buy it,and better yet why not write a simple letter to the company that offends you,you might be surprised at the almost immediate result that will get.But no no no thats to difficult isnt it,we need the government to do it for us,and we all know how well that will work dont we.I didnt know if I should laugh or cry so I chose to laugh.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzLebC0mjCQ&feature=BFa&list=PL04C18A317C16401B

  • Glissando Remmy

    Thought of The Day

    “Recycling… Good Intentions based on Bad Information… Oh, all right then, and it’s good for someone’s business too!”

    gman #26
    ROTFLMAO!
    And yes, I’ve seen Penn & Teller’s BS many times before.
    I believe Recycling it’s CRAP on a plate coated in sugar, yes, but guess what… I recycle too!
    Goddamnit!
    Makes me feel good, takes the guilt away. Like the Carbon Offset BS thingy.
    Fly to London for business, come back and plant some trees in the Interior, reduce the number of cold showers per week, cut down on meat consumption.
    I feel a better person already.
    Should I have a 5% Alcohol content
    500ml Tuborg beer now or a 0.5% Alcohol content 335ml Becks beer?

    … what the hell, I’ll have the 5% first and then I’ll… walk to Safeway to buy a 0.5% Six Pack! 🙂

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Higgins

    Glissy,
    thanks for the advice , I’m going to have a cold one in about half an hour. With food, of course 🙂
    Cheers!

  • Bill

    @mezzanine #21

    Health care user fees can be covered in the case of low income patients. As for those who can afford it and choose not to spend money on their own health then they shouldn’t expect everyone else to pick up the tab. Without a user fee the rationale decision for a patient is to take no chances and utilize the health system to the max.

  • mezzanine

    @Bill 29

    But i am unsure if charging for visits up front and reducing demand might cause more expenses downstream. (eg. a small infection that could be tx’d as an out pt turns into a bad infection that requires hospital stay).

    making further exemptions to any health care user fee also adds to the cost of its implementation.

    I’d agree with some ways to recoup costs (like means-testing pharmacare for seniors). but IMO user fees would be a blunt instrument with lots of potential unintended consequences.

    The NHS explored this a few times in the past 20 yrs, and have things siimilar to how they are here…

    It appears difficult to protect vulnerable groups that need effective and accessible
    healthcare but are less likely to seek it, while limiting “unnecessary” demand among other,
    usually wealthier and healthier groups, which might overuse services. Charges do not
    readily differentiate between frivolous, necessary and unnecessary use of services…

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/815/815-i.pdf

    perhaps we agree to disagree. 🙂

  • Bill

    @mezzanine #30

    The report you cite is a good read as long as you remember it was produced under a UK Labour government before the financial crash in 2008 when we believed we were rich enough to be stupid financially.

    In their survey of European countries that have user fees it was interesting to read that Sweden, the country Progressives haul out as an example of a socialist success, charges user fees. In the addendum, reporting on a visit to Sweden the Committees noted “There is no clear evidence of a deterrent effect of charges in Sweden though.” In fact, it was documented that most European countries have user fees. For some reason the Committee never looked to Canada which, as we has the best health care system in the world.

    Removing impediments to accessing the medical system does not equate to timely treatment as our waiting lists show. While a user fee may result in some undesirable medical outcomes, the current system already has undesirable outcomes because of the waiting lists just to get specialist consultations. (Let’s hope that Dr. Day is successful in his legal battles).

    Our current medical system is not financially sustainable and if we do not start making substantive changes, like user fees and private health care, the system will ultimately collapse.

  • Raymond Fung

    Local governments are generally supportive of the leadership shown by the Province by including Packaging and Printed Paper as part of Extended Producer Responsibility. Meanwhile, we munis think we’ve been doing a pretty good job with local Blue Box programs, so we want to make sure that MultiMaterials BC engages us stakeholders to get it right. However, we are concerned that MMBC have asked the Province for an extension to the timelines. With an election coming up, I’m concerned that this will be put on the backburner.

    Ray Fung
    Director, Engineering & Transportation
    District of West Vancouver