In November last year the long awaited Containers for Change scheme was finally introduced in Queensland. The starting date had been delayed five months to allow stakeholders more time to ensure that problems with the NSW scheme would not be repeated here.
But, sadly, the extra time and the previous experiences from both failed and successful programs in NSW and South Australia didn’t lead to a simple and effective roll-out in the Sunshine State.
In Noosa, our local champion Sandy Bolton MP spent her Christmas break trying to ease community uproar as the Noosa Community Notice Board on Facebook lit up with thousands of complaints about the lack of drop-off points and an inexplicable decision by local provider, Return-It, to require the used containers to be deposited in plastic bags.
I was still in recovery mode myself from many years campaigning to ban plastic bags, so this requirement didn’t sit well with me. Instead of relief, we found ourselves with a much more complex system where we need to separate recycling which used to be collected every fortnight, place acceptable containers in plastic bags which we then drive to collection points to claim back the 10 cents we paid when we purchased the items we are now discarding.
Containers for change, or constrainers of change?
From an environmental sustainability perspective, the local containers for change project fails on a number of fronts.
We’ve pushed the burden back on the community, and made it as confusing as possible. Some schemes have stickers and bags, some pay on the spot, others require registration and payments using vouchers. They all have different names, different websites and different requirements.
In Noosa, this mostly requires people to get into their cars and drive a considerable distance to container drop-off points, many residents facing a journey upwards of 25-30 km (30 minutes or more) to the nearest collection point. To make the journey a profitable or appealing one, this necessitates collecting very many containers beforehand or great passion to deposit the few you have.
With each system and operator, a bag is used (or required to be used) that creates more environmental problems. This is counter-intuitive to the intent of the scheme – which is to reduce plastic pollution in the environment.
At the very least there should be a requirement that these bags are produced using recycled materials, that they are not being sent to landfill and that they are recycled.
The current systems are:
RETURN-IT
Requires that users have to provide their own single-use clear plastic bag to deposit containers. This is simply unacceptable and it has raised the ire of many community groups and environmental organisations like Boomerang Bags who are working tirelessly for the eradication of single-use plastic bags.
ENVIROBANK
The orange ‘onion bags’ are required to use the pod systems – the prevalent collection system for this operator outside of depots. These bags are often not available at the pods, making the use of this system almost impossible to operate effectively – with users travelling large distances or repeatedly to their local drop-off location and unable to redeem.
Additionally, there have been confusing rules circulated regarding the use of these bags, such as requirements for exactly 50 containers, voiding and lost credits. The bags themselves also break down quickly in Queensland’s hot and humid environment.
Reports from clean up crews indicated that additional effort is required to count exactly 50 containers per bag, and that any bag containing even one ineligible container condemns the whole bag to landfill. One user told me the last time they delivered bags, the shed contained a mountain of bags not yet processed.
TOMRA
While bags are not required for the depots, large white bags made from recycled plastic were given out during the launch of the scheme. These bags break down quickly in the Queensland weather. While it is laudable that they are made of a proportion of recycled plastic, it would be better if they were not provided at all or if another suitable material was used.
Benefit to schools and clubs
It’s not all negative, though, and I do see benefits for sporting clubs that have sufficient space for collection crates and onsite storage of large quantities. In my opinion the program should be focused on these types of collections rather than at an individual household level.
In South Australia, on average, schools can expect to earn around $20,000 a year which is a great fundraiser.
Sunshine Beach State High School was selected as a trial school to participate in the program through P&C Queensland, and students were given an orange onion bag to fill and return to school every fortnight.
Unfortunately, due to Education Queensland regulations, no glass is allowed on the school grounds and therefore the bags returned exclude a significant portion of eligible Containers for Change products. This requires the glass products to be taken to a drop-off facility and a school code used for virtual donations.
The first collection day fell towards the end of the school year and the big lag between the start of the program and its resumption after the long summer break meant a slow start to collection activities.
In addition, students who go to school by bus can’t participate, as the bags are not allowed on board. As a member of our P&C, I hope notwithstanding these setbacks, that the scheme will become a good money maker to fund other environmental and waste strategies at the school.
Recycling in general
So where does the new scheme leave recycling in general?
The separation of containers from from co-mingled recycling means that the streams are much cleaner and attracting a much higher price point as a commodity – which is great.
Noosa Council reports indicate that a clean glass stream is desirable and that glass recyclers really do want the glass from the scheme.
But, while the scheme does have obvious benefits, it needs to be made easier for users.
Let’s look at it from a customer’s perspective. Previously, I used to put my recycling bin out on the street and was led to believe that the rest was taken care of. My rubbish would be separated at the Materials Resource Facility and the different streams would make their merry way to a place where they would be given another life.
The fact that shiploads of waste left our shores destined for third world countries remained a mystery to most people until a year ago when the Chinese government announced a stringent maximum contamination threshold of 0.5% leaving our rubbish, with a 6 – 10% contamination rate, unacceptable.
Local councils responded by stockpiling waste in the hope that their State governments would take care of the problem and, while some progress has been made, there’s no denying that our cumbersome political system with its many layers of bureaucracy isn’t as agile as we need it to be in response to the unfolding crisis.
Different laws in different states have sparked an industry of dump trucks driving rubbish across borders, a bit like leaf blowers blowing our debris into our neighbour’s yard. Not my problem, so problem solved!
In the meantime our consumption keeps rising and recycling rates have fallen, with the Federal Government’s plastics recycling survey reporting a national plastics recycling rate of just 11.8%.
A recent Noosa News article stated that Noosa’s own landfill waste diversion rate had fallen and that “significant improvement was required from Council and the Noosa community to reach the aspiration targets of zero net emissions and zero waste to landfill”.
Make your voice heard!
If you feel passionate about this issue, now is the time to speak up! The Queensland Government’s draft Waste Management and Resource Recovery Strategy and the complementary Community Summary are open for public submissions.
Submissions are due by 5pm, Friday 5 April 2019
