While manufacturers of one-trip containers argue that their products are recyclable, this does not necessarily mean they are being recycled or that recycling these products will ultimately benefit the environment. In fact, in many cases the reverse is true. Recycling is often being used as a marketing tool at the expense of consumers and the environment.

Refillables on the other hand greatly reduce our impact on the environment without extra cost. So long as they achieve a certain number of refills or 'trips' (generally around 10 for beverages) to at least overcome the impact of their initial production, refillables reduce waste, minimise the use of materials and energy, and reduce pollution and litter. This is because the overall impact of a container is shared amongst each of its many refills.

In practice, refillable bottles generally have no trouble achieving more than the 10 trips necessary for them to 'break even'. Because of the strong financial incentive for them to do so, fillers take advantage of the durability of refillables by collecting, washing and refilling them as many times as possible. In the past it was not uncommon for bottles to be washed and refilled 50 or more times [5, p.37]. Even today, one of the last remaining refillables in New South Wales, the all-but-forgotten milk bottle, achieves a 96% return rate (equivalent to 25 trips [11]) with little if any promotion. Imagine the re-use rate possible if refillables were the rule rather than the exception!

The following environmental benefits will be derived from the introduction of CDL as a result of significantly higher levels of re-use and recycling.

WASTE REDUCTION

Deposit systems achieve extremely high return rates. As a consequence of this, when a business is faced with the return of nearly all the containers they sell, the cost of disposal and economics of container choice comes under scrutiny. For purely financial reasons this encourages a shift to the use of reusable and recyclable containers and utilisation of otherwise wasted resources, with a high level of waste reduction resulting.

Consequentially, and in keeping with experience in the United States, the introduction of CDL in NSW would lead to a reduction in total solid waste of between 4 and 6% [10, p.260].

Such a reduction is not surprising considering the return rates in South Australia [8, p.5] for deposit-bearing glass, aluminium and PET drink containers are 84-97%, 85% and 54% respectively. In dramatic contrast to SA the same containers bearing no deposit in NSW [12, p.24] achieve return rates of only 27%, 60% and 3% respectively.

Figure 1 represents a 'cradle-to-grave' comparison of the waste associated with various milk and soft drink packaging alternatives. The European Economic Community (EEC) study [13] behind these findings is quoted in a similar Australian study [14]. The more recent Australian study, funded by the association of carton manufacturers, reaffirms the superiority of refillable glass despite the attempts of its sponsors to disguise the fact.

In comparison to its one-trip alternatives, refillable glass (over 10 trips) can be seen to create less waste - an advantage that increases with trippage.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Raw Materials

CDL reduces resource consumption by encouraging a shift to reusable and recyclable containers and by ensuring a high rate of their return. As a result, less raw material is required to replace the material which would otherwise have ended up in the waste stream.

eg. A refillable glass bottle used 20 times avoids the need for 19 new containers to be manufactured from raw materials. If (as is most likely the case) the bottle is recycled at the end of its reusable life, even more raw materials are saved.

Note: This particular example highlights the real reason the various container manufacturers so strongly oppose CDL. Their substantial profits (paid for by consumers) derived from the continual manufacture of one-trip containers would be diminished by a shift to refillables.

Water

It is often claimed by container manufacturers that a huge amount of water is wasted washing refillables. However, it is more likely that less water is used for refillables than for one-way container systems.

In a report [15, p.35] to the Parliament of Australia, 15-trip refillable beer bottles were found to use only one-half to one-third the water of the one-trip alternatives. The report also found that water-borne wastes were significantly reduced.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

The use of refillable containers, encouraged by CDL, results in significant energy savings in contrast to recycling alone. As the number of trips increases beyond break-even energy savings increase rapidly. The more trips a refillable container achieves, the greater the benefit.

A US report [10, p.250] estimates that the enactment of CDL would result in a 33% reduction in energy use in the beverage container industry (including transport) or 0.2% of total US energy usage.

Similar findings have been reported by the South Australian Government [16], concluding that energy savings of 43% within the industry or 0.13% of total SA energy usage could be achieved by the use of 10-trip refillables rather than non-refillable bottles. Savings of this magnitude are all the more important in light of the NSW and Federal Government's commitment to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005.

Figure 2 compares the energy consumption associated with the various milk and soft drink packaging alternatives. Again, the EEC study [13] which arrived at these values used a cradle-to-grave approach, considering total energy use (including transport) from production to ultimate disposal of each container type.

The superiority of refillable glass is again clearly shown. The energy-saving benefit of recycling one-trip containers however, is demonstrably marginal. The practice of glass bottle and aluminium can recycling is seen to offer relatively small energy savings while the collection and reprocessing of plastic and carton milk containers and PET plastic soft drink bottles, into different products, more likely represents an energy and environmental cost. With no potential for re-use or recycling, the collection and reprocessing of these latter-mentioned containers is arguably little more than a public relations exercise that wastes energy and cause additional pollution.

POLLUTION REDUCTION

The re-use and recycling of containers, encouraged by CDL, avoids the need for many new containers to be made from raw materials. As a result there is a dramatic reduction in the pollution of our land, air and water caused by mineral extraction, processing and production operations, and waste disposal.

Land degradation is reduced by CDL mainly as a result of the smaller amount of waste to be disposed of by landfill and the reduction in litter.

The air and water pollution reduction benefits of refillables is quantified by the following US Environmental Protection Agency figures from an OECD report [5, p.59]:

The report goes on to point out that the washing of refillables uses (a mild solution of) caustic soda rather than detergents and that the resultant (alkaline) waste water is frequently used to neutralise the acid wastes from breweries.

LITTER REDUCTION

The imposition of a refundable deposit on containers has a dramatic effect on the occurrence and persistence of such containers as litter. Because of their elevation in status from 'worthless waste' to 'valuable commodity', containers are less likely to be discarded as litter. Even if they are discarded, they are likely to be collected by others to obtain the refund.

The operation of CDL is also likely to influence consumer attitudes to other so called 'throwaway' products which are presently noticeable as litter.

In line with experience in the US, the introduction of CDL in NSW would reduce beverage container litter by between 70 and 90% and reduce total litter by up to 50% [10, p.260].