What makes a deposit return scheme successful?

A large proportion of our waste is comprised of single-use drinks containers and far too many of them end up littering our high streets, beaches and countryside. Plastic drinks containers ultimately break up into tiny pieces (microplastics) which go on to cause harm in the natural environment. (Glass containers cause different problems when they break and litter the streets with bits of glass that can cut animal’s feet and cause infections).

To reduce the problem of this unsightly and damaging litter, the UK is to introduce a deposit return scheme (DRS) [1], starting in October 2027. This means you will pay slightly more for your drink but get some back when you return the container to a collection point.

If the scheme is successful this will increase the recycling rate for plastic and other bottles, reducing the need for more virgin material and the GHG emissions from the fossil fuel plastic is made from. You will still be able to leave your plastics for collection by your local waste collection services as now but you will not get the deposit back that way. The DRS route is better for recycling because the bottles will be sorted rather than mixed in with other rubbish as now. The scheme will be managed by a not-for-profit Deposit Management Organisation (DMO) .

There are already successful schemes in Germany [2] and Sweden that we can learn from. These schemes achieved returns rate of 98% [2] and 87.6% [3] respectively in 2024.

The key factors for high collection rate are:

• Significant deposit value to incentivise consumers
• In Germany, the deposits for multi-use containers range from 0.08 - 0.25 euro (7p-22p). For single-use containers the deposit is 0.25 euro (set by the government) [2]
• In some places the deposit varies with the size of the container. For example in Sweden you get 1 or 2 SEK (8p or 16p) for aluminium cans depending on the size, or 2-3 SEK (16p – 25p) for PET bottles [3]
•  Many nearby collection points
•  Reducing the effort required to take containers back
• To increase the density of collection points, retailers may be obliged to take collections, or take part in a shared collection service such as Re-turn
• In California there is no obligation on retailers to take back containers and the recycling rate is much lower – only 60%
• Most Items included in the scheme
• Typically glass and aluminium containers are included and often recyclable plastic such as PET. 
• PET plastic is usually shredded and reformed into pellets to make new bottles
•  The UK scheme will not include glass because of safety issues with broken glass. However glass is included in the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme [1].
• To reduce costs for the retailer
• Shared services
• Revino supports wine producers in Oregon in re-using wine bottles. They provide sorting and washing services
• Collections can be automated, for example by reversed vending machines [4]

In summary: deposit return schemes can be very successful in raising recycling rates for containers and hence reducing GHG emissions. However they can be onerous to use for both consumers and retailers. To achieve high levels of participation it needs to be convenient for consumers to take the containers to collection points and/or fines for con-compliance by the retailer. Shared services and/or automation can reduce costs.

[1] Introducing the deposit return scheme for drinks containers Jan 2025 (blog.gov, Jan 2025) 

 

[2] A look at Germany’s bottle deposit scheme (dw.com, Nov 2021) 

[3] New data says Swedish DRS recycled 2.8 billion beverage containers in 2024 (Packaging Europe) March 2025

[4] Reverse vending machines: The benefits of automation for retailers in deposit return schemes

 

One third of microplastic in the oceans comes from washing clothes - really?

I recently heard a claim that a third of microplastic in the ocean comes from laundry, as synthetic clothes shed fibres in the wash. (This was on a radio program called New Year Solutions: clothes, on radio 4.) This struck me as unlikely so I checked and I believe I found the source: a report from the IUCN in 2017[1]. They do indeed estimate that a third of primary microplastics come from laundry – averaged over the world. However this varies hugely in different regions. I found estimates specific to the UK in a report by Eunomia for Friends of the Earth [2]. They found that only 8% of UK primary microplastic is from laundry. The bulk is actually from tyre wear from cars and lorries.

Why I am pulling 100% degradable plastic bags from my compost bin

My organic veg supplier has recently started using plastic bags with this logo on. It says they are '100% degradable'. Perhaps I was naive in assuming that meant it was OK to put the bags in the compost bin. It turns out that they are 'oxo-degradable', a technology which is highly controversial.  They are currently banned in France and Spain [1]. 150 organisations including the World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and British Plastics Federation Recycling Group have signed a statement calling for them to be banned completely [2]. Now the European Commission has called for all member countries to take measures against them [3].

Is waste incineration sensible, a health disaster or a white elephant?

Amey have submitted a planning application for an Energy from Waste plant at their waste handling facility in Waterbeach [1]. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? There are potential concerns about air pollution, carbon emissions and disincentive to reycle. But it will divert stuff from landfill and probably reduce GHG emissions overall.

The facility will process residual waste – the stuff that has come through the Mechanical Biological Treatment and not been picked out as valuable, and the stuff that was rejected from the dry recycling plant, plus construction and demolition waste. This waste would normally go to landfill.

The waste will be burnt in a furnace at 850°C to produce electricity and also heat; they hope to supply district heating for new developments in the area.

Amey's main EfW inputs and outputs [1, section 4]

A bottle deposit scheme is tinkering round the edges.

Much of the news reporting on the parliament report ‘Turning back the plastic tide’ has been about implementing a bottle deposit scheme for plastic bottles. However this is not the most important of the recommendations made.  The key ones, in my view, are those designed to build a market for recycled plastic and to shift the burden of handling packaging waste onto producers.

First a quick recap of the numbers. Annually in the UK

• 13 billion plastic bottles used
• 7.5 billion recycled
• 3 billion incinerated
• 2.5 billion go to landfill

How bad is bottled water, really?

I have been asked to look at the relative carbon emissions from tap water versus bottled water. Many people seem to think that our mains water supply is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. It is not, at least in the volumes we use for drinking. However bottled water certainly is - partly due to the bottle and partly due to the distance it is transported. The greenhouse gas emissions for bottled water are 200 - 600 times as much as tap water.

Here are some summary figures.

Water	gCO2e/litre
Tap water	0.5
Bottled water best case: from local source in 1.5 litre bottles, 50% recycled plastic	118
Bottled water worse case: from a distant source such as San Pellegrino, in 0.5 litre bottles, virgin plastic	322

For comparison, a typical UK resident will generate about 30kg CO2/day so one litre of bottled water per day could be 1% of this.

Is landfill best for plastics?

I used to think that landfill is the best way to dispose of most plastics on the grounds that when plastics go into landfill they stay there - it is a form of carbon sequestration. On the other hand when plastic made from fossil fuels rots in soil or is incinerated, the net result is the same as burning the fuel and contributes to climate change. Since the plastic has come from the ground the best way to finish with it is to put it back into the ground. The main problems with plastic are due to the stuff that doesn't get into landfill - the stuff that litters the environment, contaminates the oceans and kills wildlife. However, from reading a report from ENSO Plastics on plastics disposal [1] I have come to realise that plastic in landfill is unlikely to remain pristine for thousands of years. Nature is incredibly resourceful and we keep finding examples of bugs and microbes that have evolved to consume plastic that was not supposed to be biodegradable [2][3][4]. So what is the best way to dispose of plastic materials?

Can we make more sustainable clothing choices?

I was dismayed to read recently of the extent of plastic pollution due to microfibres that come off our clothes when we wash them. Depending on how sewage is disposed of these fibres will get into the sea or our agricultural soils. Ecologist Mark Browne has found that 85% of the human made material on the shoreline consists of microfibers of nylon and acrylic, almost certainly from clothes [1]. However, some synthetics are biodegradable and when other aspects of sustainability such as carbon emissions or water use are considered synthetics are often a good choice. In practice there are a lot of factors and our behaviour, in particular how we wash and dry our clothes, how often we do this, how long we keep them and how we dispose of them when we have finished with them all make a big difference.