Posted on 08/22/2003 5:17:19 AM PDT by ijcr
Germany's greens are delighted, but everyone else is cursing a new obligatory tin can deposit law, introduced earlier this year, which is costing consumers millions of euros.
Consumers have to pay an extra 17p for drinks packaged in a tin or aluminium can, which they can reclaim later. However, bureaucrat wrangling has seen the rules compromised into meaninglessness, and apathy amongst shoppers has meant the scheme has barely made a dent in efforts to encourage more can recycling.
Few consumers have bothered to get their money back after buying a thirst-quenching drink during this summer's heat wave. According to a recent ministry of economic affairs study 80% of deposits are unclaimed and by the end of October €450m (£312m) will have piled up in shopkeepers' tills - equivalent to 1.8bn cans that have simply been thrown away.
Strict rules govern reclaiming deposits and discourage consumers from returning their cans. They have to take their can back to the same shop they bought it from within six months and produce the receipt to get their money back.
The German economy is on its knees and went into technical recession at the start of this month. The finance ministry is desperate to bolster spluttering growth by encouraging more consumer spending, but because shopkeepers cannot touch the deposit money for three years, hundreds of millions of euros have effectively been taken out of circulation.
Some politicians have already called for the rules to be changed to allow retailers to tap into the growing lake of deposit money but this is legally difficult as technically the money still belongs to the consumer who bought the can.
"Up to a third of [Germany's] laws and regulations are useless. The people need to speak out again," said interior minister Günther Beckstein in a recent interview with Die Bild Zeitung criticising the new law.
Supermarkets have responded by simply taking tin cans off their shelves and only sell drinks in plastic and glass packages, as they say dealing with returning deposits creates too much extra work.
The drinks industry has also been hard hit, laying off hundreds of workers at a time when Germany is already suffering from chronic unemployment. Shifts for the survivors have been reduced and some production lines are only working part-time.
And the deposit rule has brought Berlin into conflict with Brussels. The European commission president, Romano Prodi, wrote to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder this month saying German must set up a nationwide tin can collection system or face "legal proceedings for breaching EU law". The EU says that the rules prevent other European drink makers from selling their cans in Germany and so break Europe's free-trade rules.
The German environment minister, Jürgen Trittin, who authorised the law, has been widely abused for introducing meaningless exemptions to the rules.
The deposit only applies to fizzy drinks and not to flat drinks: customers have to pay a deposit on a can of the popular Apfelschorle (apple juice mixed with sparkling water) but don't have to if they buy a simple apple juice. Likewise the thirsty pedestrian has to pay a deposit for a can of cola, but not for a can of pre-mixed whisky cola.
"Why is still apple juice less environmentally damaging than sparkling apple juice?" asks one producer. "Yet cans of still apple juice have no deposit, while sparkling does."
The fact that some cans have no deposit has already become a selling point for some producers and one coffee maker has slashed Pfandfrei (deposit free) across its posters.
Some irritated shopkeepers have chose to ignore the deposit altogether. In many of the Turkish-run all-night stores in Berlin, shopkeepers give customers buying Dosenpfand (deposit can) a knowing smile and leave the cost of the deposit off the price.
Industry and consumer groups have called on Mr Trittin to suspend the law until the mess can be sorted out, and launched a national advertising campaign under the slogan: "Obligatory deposits no - there are better alternatives."
The government is due to consider a suspension of the law, or at least simplifying it, next week.
Since the 90's the experts tell us to look to the Europeons for the answers.
Who next? The Bolivians?
Undoubtedly because of crazy schemes likes these. Frankly, I can't help but feel a bit of schadenfreund over the misery in Europe.
Now, that's messed up. If they kept it sane, this could be a boon to the homeless. When you finished your drink you could just give the can to a homeless guy/beggar and let him take the can back and collect the money. The way they have it rigged here no one outside of the stores is getting anything positive. It's more or less like they've allowed the shops to start charging a frivolous tax- just because.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.