Hacker News Reader

Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

I have travelled extensively in Latin America and Africa.

The vast majority of developing and undeveloped countries don't recycle - which is the worst thing you should be doing - they reuse.

Beer and soda bottles have a deposit that is higher than the liquid in them, and everyone returns the bottles like clockwork. If you want to buy a 24 pack the first one is expensive, then you just bring back the empties and pick up a full one, so it's like a permanent rolling deposit.

Developed countries not doing this is shameful. We are supposed to be the world leaders, but we're just leading the world in using stuff up. We have so much to learn.

View on HN

> Developed countries not doing this is shameful.

I'd like to establish a variant of Chesterton's fence - something like 'You don't get to get morally outraged about something without understanding "why".'

Why are developed countries not doing it? My guess would be cost, so why is a "wasteful" practice cheaper? Is it something else than externalities that aren't properly represented in the cost, or is the morally odious thing possibly more efficient, or is it something else?

Without that answer, it's hard to suggest meaningful action: If it's the externalities, we need to make them part of the cost. If it's actually more efficient this way, we need to stop demanding to make it worse. And if it's something else, then we need to figure out what it is and whether/how to address it.

But right now, it seems like random things are picked based on looks/feelings, pointed at, and demanded to change (usually to something that was done in the past and is no longer done).

Not cost. Profits!

Externalizing these is so much cheaper to the companies involved that they do it that way. Setting up a bottle recycling plant is expensive, and that cost is not passed on to the consumer but absorbed by the company. So the profits go down.

Here is an interesting and recent article which captures some of that motive: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/18/coca-cola-recycling-plas.... The truth is, that these businesses which externalize the costs are also huge interests in the areas where they are prevalent. Coke is synonymous with Georgia, so it is unlikely they will ever have a bottle deposit there. So is Waste Management (NYSE:WM) . Regarding externalities, many people believe that generating disposable things as a practice is fundamentally externalizing costs.

You make a really good point and it would be relevant to this situation if it wasn't for the fact that some developed countries have implemented this policy.

The bigger question you should be asking is why haven't all developed countries adopted such obviously sensible policies. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason is regulatory capture.

It's easy to scream regulatory capture but one man's regulatory capture is another man's sensible public health legislation preventing the re-use of food/beverage containers without being properly cleaned in a way that just so happens to almost always be be cost prohibitive. A lot of these "regulatory capture" things do have benefits other than enriching corporations but the devil is in the details so it's hard to pick out regulatory capture from special interests getting something they care about done. Except in the most egregious cases it's hard to tell which is which without being an expert in the relevant fields on any given issue.

So in other words you can't really say anything substantial about the merits of reusing bottles?

If that's the case why not take the time to look into the regions in the developed world that have implemented these systems and see how they work?

Someone else in the thread mentioned that the province of Ontario (which IIRC is the largest purchaser of alcohol in the world) has switched over to a system homogeneous bottles that are washed and reused.

If a region as vast as Ontario with a population of approximately 14 million can do this, why isn't it feasible else where?

If it's the externalities, we need to make them part of the cost.

Sure. But you say that as if it's easy. In some cases it's not trivial to put a monetary figure on these things. This may be why they are an externality in the first place.

More importantly, in each case where you intend to make someone pay for something they are used to getting for free, they will resist that change, even if that something is the right to pollute the river.

Making externalities part of the cost has always been a struggle. Nevertheless, I agree in principle.

The problem with internalizing garbage costs is that it incentivizes people to externalizing them back again but worse, by illegally dumping their waste wherever they can get away with, e.g. in a river.

If not for that problem, we could simply charge garbage collection by weight, including all costs of recycling and/or disposal, and let the market sort it out.

A friend of mine employed at a chemical company worked on a plastics recycling projects.

Even mixing single-digit percentages of recycled plastics with virgin plastics made the resulting product substandard. Think laundry baskets that break after a couple of uses.

The recovery, washing and attempt to recycle the plastic was extremely expensive, labor and resource intensive.

In the end he truthfully thought the plastic should be burned.

I personally think we should industrialize the waste management, reducing the waste to components that can be easily reused, or inert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification

Maybe a fountain system where people being their own reusable bottles would be better still.

> Even mixing single-digit percentages of recycled plastics with virgin plastics made the resulting product substandard.

That is why bottle return systems work: they collect only known plastic/metal/glass.

We used to have this in Slovenia. You’d bring bottles back to the store and they’d deduct from your next purchase.

Then some time in the 90s/00s that stopped. Instead we got glass recycling. And 5 other types of recycling. You’re supposed to sort them all and have some 8 trash cans in total at your house.

Oh and if you forget a cap on your bottles or don’t scrape off the paper label and make sure you wash everything before putting it in the trash then you’re a terrible person and you should be ashamed of yourself.

So everyone started throwing everything in the same trash. Making sure your recycling is recyclable is just too much work.

And don’t even get me started on the compostable plastic trash liners that start composting in the trash can so you can’t even take the trash out ...

> Oh and if you forget a cap on your bottles or don’t scrape off the paper label and make sure you wash everything before putting it in the trash then you’re a terrible person and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Same in Poland. I can't think of a better way to sabotage recycling efforts. Whoever introduced this into regulation/common practice, I believe it was intended to actually make people stop segregating trash.

The problem with anything that you treat as an environmental issue is that various advocates will bikeshed anything.

Reusing bottles seems like a no-brainer. Except you’ll hear about how much water and energy is used washing the bottles, that extra fuel and tires will be used transporting them, etc.

When my county banned styrofoam cups, somebody appeared claiming it would increase workers compensation claims due to the heavier weight of paper cups.

The difference between bikeshedding and engineering is just that the engineer cares to get these details as right as it makes sense, and then continue with the work. Whether glass bottles are better energy and emissions-wise than disposable plastics is a question that needs to be asked and answered, and anyone pretending it's not relevant is not a good environmentalist.

Similarly, with styrofoam vs. paper cups, it's something that could be first estimated and then either ignored (if the difference is within margin of error) or acted upon.

This is the kind of argument Coca Cola prompted to protect their branding.

New bottles and cans are also washed (you don't want the chemical goop from manufacture inside).

Discarded bottles must still be transported to incineration / landfill, in which case more oil/sand/ore must be brought from somewhere.

Pfand (deposit) for bottles is widespread in Germany.

We need proper taxation to encourage this at scale. Reusable items should be sold at a premium that can be redeemed by bringing it back. The market will do the rest.

Depending on your income you can still "throw away" stuff, but there will still be significant value in that "trash" to make it worthwhile for other people to dig through it and bring it back into use.

Same with plastic bags and things we consider banning for the sake of protecting the planet. Don't ban, just price it in such a way that the item has a built-in reward for someone else to bring it back in circulation.

>worthwhile for other people to dig through it and bring it back into use.

Some states in Australia have a 10c tax on bottles and cans which can be refunded when you recycle them. Almost everyone recycles them at home but if you are away from home they tend to get chucked in the trash and you will see people walking around with bags and tongs picking cans out of the trash to cash in.

Make this a $1/bottle when reused and almost everyone will be taking them back or someone will certainly pick it out of the trash.

I think it might be worth having the local laws define a set of standard containers/bottles so when you return your beer bottle it doesn't have to go back to the exact same company. There is really no reason other than marketing to have custom bottles for every drink./

Setting the price that high is likely to backfire... make it a $1/bottle when reused and people will start producing these just to profit on the recycle.

That's not what's happening in Germany though and their deposit is in that range.

Is it? Highest deposit per bottle/can I'm aware of is 25ct. Which is a quarter.

When I went shopping last time I visited my mom I thought it was higher. I took back a crate with empty bottles and got mineral water almost for free. The price for the water was almost as high as the deposit if I remember correctly.

In any case I have heard about people stealing "Pfandflaschen" but never about people producing them. I think there are easier ways to commit fraud.

Oh. I forgot about the crates. They have a deposit too, but i don't use them because I'm not buying that much at once.

1 AUD = 0.60€

Tax the raw materials, not the bottles. After all, the problem we're trying to solve is raw materials being wasted and potentially ending up in landfills. Whether it's a bottle or other container doesn't really change anything there.

With the raw materials taxed there wouldn't be a way to produce these bottles for less unless you somehow come up with a new design that uses less plastic or uses materials that are deemed less damaging to the environment.

Of course, this would require an in-depth review to figure out which materials to tax, how much, etc and to make sure there aren't any loopholes or unintended collateral damage. It's no easy task, but I think the result would be worth it.

This story reminds me of the years I spent living in various developing Asian countries, and how I’d see dozens of small trash fires burning on the side of the road every single day on my drive home from work.

I've looked into this before, and even though people do care, there's 3 big challenges to recycling and reuse in at least the US and Canada: Money, Convenience, and Jurisdiction.

Money: The companies producing and "handing-off" much of the waste are unmotivated to make items reusable because the economies of scale already exist today for production, shipping, and distribution of single-use materials, and as long as the disposal side is not their problem, then they just wipe their hands and say "Well, that's for someone else to handle."

Convenience: Consumers that end up with the materials now bear the burden of recycling/reusing them. Unless it is engrained behavior (e.g. like in Japan), then that usually means more work for the end-user to figure out what to do with the waste - and also do it correctly. It turns out people that want to do the right thing even have a hard time doing it the right way. There's actually a tendency to 'over-recycle' to the point it becomes a detriment through cross-contamination and increased sorting time.

Jurisdiction: It's hard to implement and scale widespread programs when laws and regulations vary across local, county, state, and national levels. Without consensus even among neighboring counties, the costs and incentives to setup and run programs makes it almost impractical or negatively profitable without government support. With China and other SE Asian countries now refusing to take US/Canadian waste, a lot of localities have axed their recycling programs completely or are in a state of flux not knowing what to do with their waste.

Overall, a few takeaways are:

- Governments need to do their part in setting up proper regulations or tax incentives for recycling/reuse to disincentivize single-use materials. Progress is so slow right now, and there's a long way to do when also competing against corporate lobbying.

- Current recycling programs often don't inform, support, or incentivize positive behavior as much as it should.

- Eco-materials that are reusable are becoming more introduced at some higher-end places, but they really need to be cost-effective through some means in order to get greater adoption.

Anyways, just my $.02 on the matter.

It's all about the cost.

Cleaning is more labor intensive than recycling, and if the cost of cleaning is less than the cost of recycling, you'll end up cleaning it. This is only possible in developing countries where it's more economical to use low-cost labor than setting up an expensive recycling facility.

As recycling technology gets better and cheaper, you'll see fewer countries opt for cleaning over recycling.

Given that bottles are all generally standard shapes, or can be easily standardized, why would cleaning not be an easy process to automate?

I think in the common case where you are just washing left over liquid and sanitizing the bottle it probably is super easy but then you have to deal with the rare cases where maybe the bottle is full of dirt or other things that would leave it still dirty after the cleaning process. I don't think its an impossible or even super difficult problem but it does raise the cost.

Working in automation, I've made machines that check for grime and misprints on new bottles and cans.

If a country were to standardize, say, drink bottles, detergent bottles, etc, then this is already a solved problem. Just have a machine clean the bottles to wash away dirt and remove labels, then run it through some image processing software to auto detect any residue. Anything within a certain threshold could either be accepted as clean or needing an extra wash, and anything over a certain % of dirtiness or having undergone N number of washes without getting clean is sent off to be melted down and recycled.

Once it's standardized, the software is made, done, and ready to deploy everywhere without any changes (until the government approves new bottle designs). Facilities would be cheap to build. The only problem is every drink manufacturer in the world would oppose it since they can't make goofily shaped bottles with cartoonish logos everywhere.

THIS!

I can totally imagine Europe passing a law for this.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was also beneficial for the soda companies - standardised bottles would be cheaper to produce/acquire, bottling equipment as well.

> but then you have to deal with the rare cases

For HN readers, this is an example of "don't make perfect the enemy of good."

If even 10% of the bottles were nasty, there are machines that can handle that.

Just like Europe's progress in standardizing chargers, we need to go back to standard bottle sizes.

One of the best examples is the Beer Store in Ontario, Canada. All brewers have to use stubby brown bottles, and achieved 99% reuse in modern times:

"Between 2013-2014, the Beer Store achieved a system-wide recovery and re-use rate of 99 per cent for the industry standard bottles, which are reused 12 to 15 times."

They accomplished such phenomenal reuse that the bottles wore out. So much for excuses, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beer_Store

In this case you really do have to get the system absolutely perfect, not just good. It is unacceptable for someone to receive a bottle that contains any amount of dirt or other contaminant.

I'm not an expert in this so idk how difficult it is to ensure this but unless the system is perfect it can't be used.

It has worked with glass bottles in Sweden for I know many decades, maybe a century, unsure. Unfortunately glass bottle usage is down and plastic usage is up.

You don't have to make the system perfect. You have to make it cautious. At any time it suspects a bottle may be too dirty or not getting cleaned for some reason, it should reroute it to manual inspection line and/or straight to remelting. So now you lose 30% of your yield, but the rest is clean and sterile. That's a good starting state, from which then you can optimize the contaminant detection.

The German mineral water industry started using a standardized glass bottle in 1969, all of these are reused: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normbrunnenflasche

If we could do it 50 years ago, we can do it now. It's a solved problem.

It’s an excellent idea. The question I always have is “can they work this out without the heavy hand of the government?”

If the end result is the same, or nearly so, does it really matter except for personal ideological purposes?

Unfortunately most laws and policies incentivize to recycle above reuse.

We used to return pop and beer bottles for a deposit in the US but it's been years since I've seen any of this.

Varies by state.

In Michigan any store that sells carbonated beverages is required to collect deposit and pay for returns. They mostly use customer fed machines that scan the bar-codes to check that they sell a given product.

Last year, legislation was proposed to end it, with the argument being that community recycling would benefit from the aluminum (I think it was a pretense).

NY does the same.

But a $0.05 deposit for a can to be returned and melted down as scrap is quite different from a $1.50 deposit for a glass bottle to be returned where it can be sanitized and reused.

If small dairy farms can do the later, why can't Coca Cola? (And why can Coca Cola do it in South America?)

> The vast majority of developing and undeveloped countries don't recycle - which is the worst thing you should be doing

Throwing the trash in a landfill is worse than recycling. But yeah, of the "active" actions you can do, recycling is the worst: reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order.

They've been doing this in Scotland for decades (50yrs?+), you take the glass bottle of IronBru or cola back to the shop or mobile-van-shop and you'd get 10p or something back (it's probably 20p or more nowadays).

I also note in Poland and Czech Republic glass bottle beer always costs a little more than the sticker price so I presume there is some $$ in returning - a nice little tip for the airbnb cleaner after a month.

There is a deposit included in the price of most glass bottles in Poland, but there is also some mix of regulations and store practices that seems targeted at the poor/homeless, to prevent them from making money by collecting bottles in trash cans. I remember having stores refuse larger batches of return bottles without a proof they were originally bought at that particular store. Maybe someone else knows more details; it's just something I observed some years ago.

Poor or homeless people collecting cans is widespread in Denmark. Teenagers especially seem to discard them if they're not at home.

Many litter bins have a small shelf for bottles, to save people rooting around in the rubbish.

Somehow, the fancy supermarket never has poor people returning the bottles at the machine, but the cheap one 200m away always does.

Probably because the bottle collectors don't want to spend the money they get on overpriced luxury stuff, so they prefer the discount store where the prices are better.

Every country I've lived in in Europe does this. Maybe you shouldn't extrapolate from the US to "all developed countries".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com