It used to be called a deposit. Maybe it still is.
And, there used to be what was called a “No deposit, no return” policy.
When I was a child living in the second home my parents owned, milk by truck used to be delivered to our house. The truck driver would deliver milk in glass bottles and place it in a cooler that was positioned near the home’s front door. The to-be-returned empty bottles would also be placed in the cooler for the driver to empty when delivering more milk. Instead of being discarded, the glass bottles would be collected, presumably sterilized, and then reused. That whole process seemed reasonable, that is, until one day it wasn’t and consumers instead visited their neighborhood grocer to buy milk in either paper or plastic cartons that could then be discarded as trash upon the contents being emptied. That system seemed reasonable, also, until it wasn’t.
It was a similar situation for purchasing soda at the grocery store, only a deposit was tacked on to the price of the soda and, when the empty bottles were returned after use, the purchaser got their deposit back. That practice, too, as far as I know fell by the wayside.
So, the question on the table is: When it comes to recycling-program participation, what method is best at getting people to participate: The threat of penalty (aka the stick) or the enticement of reward (aka the carrot)?
For my money, it’s incentives all the way.
Though I’ve experienced both, the pain of penalty just doesn’t sit well. I try to avoid that route like the plague. And, with good reason. I believe, I as much as anyone, have paid my dues — and in spades. Which has undoubtedly been a big influence in my more favoring the reward structure. It’s simply what works for me in terms of my wanting to get involved and participate.
But, with that, of course, comes risk. Like what we see with catalytic-converter and copper-wire theft. That is where the penalty structure imposed can dissuade would-be thieves from engaging in this type of behavior and activity. So, in that sense, it seems that applying both methods is appropriate.
And, it also might be instructive to look at each situation on a case-by-case basis.
The recycling world is complex and there is no-one-size-fits-all paradigm that’s the be-all, end-all solution. If there were, there’d be no need to discuss this further.