Regarding your posting on GreenYes about Coke & PET recycling in Australia
.... it is not the sort of thing one should hold their breath for. The PR
is virtually identical to that bandied about by the PET packaging
manufacturers (as opposed to Coke, a filler) about eight years ago - which
means the whole issue has not progressed since then. Even the quoted 25%
recycled content is the same as before. Needless to say, the PET recycling
crisis continues unresolved in Australia (except in South Australia where
they have container deposit legislation). As you are no doubt aware, it is
merely a delaying tactic which allows the PET manufacturers and fillers to
tread water indefinately - staving-off a big step towards producer
responsibility in the form of refundable-deposits and refillable
containers. Still, I can see the excitement value of such a precedent (ie.
25 percent PET closed-loop recycling rate by Coke) to you guys in the US
.... although I don't believe it will ever really happen (without take-back
legislation)!
Regards,
Hop.
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Pat Franklin <cri@igc.org>
>To: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>,
> "GreenYes" <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
>Subject: Re: [GRRN] Coke Recycling Activity in Australia
>
>AUSTRALIA: The threat of legislative mandates may have provided an
>incentive to Australia's beer and soft drink industries to unveil a
>voluntary waste reduction plan to help meet government waste reduction
>goals. The program includes waste minimization targets for containers,
>improvements in packaging material, more public recycling centers and
>litter management programs. The threat of container deposits led Sydney
>based Coca-Cola Atamil LTD (CCA) to begin producing their own PET bottles
>with 25% recycled content. Production will begin in January and will be
>fully operational by the end of 1998. Coke had been buying its recycled
>content bottles from a supplier, but according to Ian Brown, CCA's
>corporate affairs manager, making their own bottles lowers the cost
>significantly.