Arguments For CDL

Arguments Against CDL

þ    Proponents for CDL argue that the redeemable deposit has encouraged a high return and recycling rate (80-90%), and CDL introduction in SA has resulted in a reduction of beverage containers in the waste stream and considerable less littering of these items.

ý    Opponents believe that CDL imposes a cost on society, confers little benefit, is inflationary and depresses sales.

þ    CDL has spawned an active, significant and viable recycling industry, attracting investment and providing employment to the local community.

ý    The relatively small reduction in waste and litter makes CDL recovery an expensive system to operate.

þ    CDL sorted materials have less contamination, thus generating a higher demand for CDL recycled materials than for kerbside collected materials.

ý    CDL is expensive due to the low intrinsic value of recovered containers.

þ    The CDL system has enabled community and charitable organisations to raise funds through the collection of containers.

ý    CDL threatens the economic viability of kerbside recycling by diverting materials of value away and leaving only high volume, low value materials to be collected by the kerbside recycling scheme. 

þ    Surveys indicate that 90% of the South Australian public supports CDL and believe that it is effective in reducing litter.

ý    Multiple handling of each container under the CDL system increases the operating and processing costs, either alone or in conjunction with kerbside recycling.  CDL does however provide a ‘cleaner’ value added product with minimal contamination.

þ    Anecdotal evidence suggests that CDL has not resulted in price increases of comparable products in South Australia when compared to other states.

ý    The definition of a beverage container under the Act is limited in scope and inequitable, as all beverage containers are not uniformly treated.

þ    Local Government in South Australia generally support CDL.  Cost savings come from less labour needed for cleaning up roadsides, parks and beaches, reduced cost of kerbside collection through reduced volume and increased value of material collected and savings in landfill space.

ý    The range of materials carrying containers covered by CDL is limited to approximately 7% of household waste or 3% of the waste stream and litter items covered by CDL are only a small portion of the litter stream.

þ    Substantial environmental benefits include more than 70% reduction of beverage containers going to landfill, reduced littering, resource conservation and a reduction in energy use.

ý    CDL can influence recyclers to favour recycling materials that carry a refundable deposit and the recyclability of an item may perceived to be associated with the deposit.

ý    Consumers can be swayed into believing that since they have been charged a deposit for the container, then they have a right to litter and leave it to someone else to clean it up.