The cost of drinks largely hasn't increased in line with inflation, so you'd very quickly arrive at an unsustainable situation where returning a can/bottle would give you more money than it cost you to buy it.
The reason the redemption value has not gone up much is that people would balk at paying so much for the goods upfront, IMO. Adding 20¢ per can would add nearly $5 to the cost of a 24-pack or soda. The cost per ounce of soda drops dramatically when you buy in volume, so the redemption value would grow to be a substantial portion of the total cost for larger purchases.
They might be reluctant but if there is no other way to get that sugary hit they will do it and eventually it will be just how things are done.
Another issue that arises is that people will actually transport recyclables across state lines to arbitrage the differences in redemption value. [2] This only happens if there are large enough disparities, but in the US this is almost certain to happen due to the different policy choices made by nearby states.
1: https://anderson-review.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/...
2: https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/arrests-in-16-million...
Germany pays a lot more for cans and bottles than Poland does, but you can't return Polish bottles and cans in German stores because the barcodes and labels are different - you can cross the border without any issue, but there is no way to exploit the economic imbalance in recyclables returns.
It rather seems to be the other way around: it's easier to devise a system where you go by something unique and country-specific like a bar-code (to avoid counterfeiting business), so that's why it's like that (of course, there's also living standard difference between countries).
Still, even if there was an incentive discrepancy, it's easy for all the countries to match upward since this is basically just "loaning" bottles/cans out, and you only need to pay out "once" for your regular supply of whatever drinks you like to get, and after that, you are just re-starting the "loan".
FWIW, it's been like that in Serbia since forever, but only for the same product where the producer cared (you'd get an entire beer case, and then once you are through it, you bring it back to the store, and pick up another one): this allowed them to keep the price down and get more turnaround for their drinks.
I sure prefer the legal framework that allows returning it regardless of the specifics (producer or such).
The weird one to me is that- due to various archaic laws- in New York state carbonated hard cider in cans or bottles is not considered the same as other carbonated alcoholic beverages in cans, and is exempt from all the deposits. I'm a bit surprised they haven't changed that one.
Very little is “lost” to the city when that happens, because groceries are tax exempt.
In fact, a Rutgers study found a net positive effect due to the tax spend on early childhood education. https://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Beverage-Tax202...
Not sure what you think happened with property taxes, but there was no rash of store closings. Due to consumers periodically bulk buying soda at a different chain outlet or otherwise.
— Erik Brofoss, former Norwegian minister of finance and director of the IMF.
Additionally, since the deposit is not exempted from sales tax, the consumer also pays more sales tax than they would otherwise.
for the rest, the only alternative I see would be for the government to get ouf of it completely and say it's up to each seller/distributor to handle their own bottles, but I guess this would require more complicated logistics?
I'm pretty sure that's what happens for glass bottles in Germany, I remember bringing back plastic crates of bottles to the brewery, and buying beer in big sturdy 50cl bottles that had obviously been refilled dozens of times already
Instead it’s about $2
Of course, there are some plausible technological or political solutions to this. But it does change the economics.
You forgot externalized costs... add the cost of cleaning up after irresponsible people leaving behind their cans wherever they want or the added costs and pollution of making a can from fresh aluminium ore (bauxite), and suddenly that "ten or hundred times" becomes "at cost".
Deposits are a regulatory way to account for externalized costs, at least to a bit.
If it were about the mining the deposit would be on everything else made of aluminum too.
Of all the things to let into the environment aluminum is one of the least worst. As with everything else, it's yet another story about how narratives, marketing, knee jerk reactions and bike shedding are the name of the game when it comes to public policy.
This is how it works in Germany. You pay a deposit on every bottle. To get your money back requires a machine to recognise each bottle/can as legitimate, based on the bar code.
Now, yes, people could print stickers with fake bar codes on… but I don’t think that would work well at the scale of the major fraud operation you’re envisaging…
The Einwegpfand was supposed (I guess?) to make Einwegflaschen go away and promote Mehrwegflaschen.
As far as I can tell, retail outlets just got good at crushing Einwegflaschen. An investment in capability that benefitted basically no one.
There is a benefit: You rarely find plastic bottles and beer cans in the environment any more.
I lived in Hamburg for almost 30 years, but the city was never dirtier than it is right now.
Replying to sibling comment: The incentive is to not break the bottle, but return it instead.
There’s a beer I like that’s cheaper and easier to order direct from the Danish brewery than buy from the alcohol monopoly in Finland. The cans look identical. Of course I tried putting them in the return machine, but it would not credit them (although they’ll still take them in for recycling)
People also buy huge quantities of beer personally from Estonia (2 hr boat ride, nice day trip) and the system would probably collapse in a day if they paid for cans from anywhere.
I crush any that I know won’t give money before putting them with the household metal recycling collection as I don’t want some poor soul wasting their time fishing them out and returning them.
You cannot get cash from foreign cans or PET bottles, since the deposit was not paid here.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Article_Number
As your linked article says, "The first three digits of the EAN-13 (GS1 Prefix) usually identify the GS1 Member Organization which the manufacturer has joined (not necessarily where the product is actually made)"
It’s the ‘squash’ bit that I miss and makes me hate the deposit system. You have to keep the cans all fully intact, so the machine can read the barcode, so you have to give up stacks of room in your house and carry an awkward big bag of mostly air around to return them.
You sort of have to lay the can sideways on a belt and it spins it around before scanning the barcode, then it carries it to the appropriate bin internally (where it gets crushed). In my opinion it’s a waste of time, the machines are sticky and smelly and I feel sorry for the staff who have to go and un-jam them regularly, but on the upside you won’t see any littering around the place (well, in summer you will - it’s socially acceptable just to toss them on the ground but someone will be along to pick it up within minutes)
Doesn't matter which way you slice it, it doesn't pay. The exception is if you can ship it on Mothers's Day.