repubblica.it
Italy Delays Deposit Return System for Beverage Containers: Economic and Environmental Costs
Italy's delayed implementation of the Deposit Return System (DRS) for single-use beverage containers, despite its adoption by 50 countries since January 2025, results in an annual loss of approximately 7 billion containers escaping proper recycling, incurring economic and environmental costs; successful European models show a 94% average collection rate compared to the 58% without the DRS.
- How do the experiences of other European countries with DRS compare to CONAI's projected costs and anticipated impacts on traditional recycling programs?
- The DRS, already active in 16 EU countries, boasts an average 94% collection rate for beverage containers, significantly higher than the 58% average in countries without it. Studies suggest that a DRS in Italy could achieve a 95-96% collection rate within two years for PET bottles and cans.
- What are the immediate economic and environmental consequences of Italy's delayed implementation of the Deposit Return System (DRS) for single-use beverage containers?
- In Italy, approximately 7 billion single-use beverage containers escape proper recycling annually. The Deposit Return System (DRS), implemented in 50 countries since January 2025, adds a small deposit to the purchase price, refunded upon return of the empty container. This incentivizes recycling and reduces waste.
- What are the potential long-term social and behavioral impacts of introducing a DRS in Italy, considering consumer awareness and collaboration needs for effective waste management?
- While Italy's 2021 DRS legislation awaits implementation, the delay creates economic and environmental costs. Continued resistance, primarily from the CONAI consortium, citing potential costs of €2.3 billion in initial investment and €350 million annually in operation, contrasts with successful EU models proving cost-effectiveness and environmental benefits.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames DRS in a positive light, highlighting its successes in other European countries and emphasizing the potential benefits for Italy. While it mentions CONAI's criticisms, it presents them as opposition rather than valid concerns that need consideration. The headline and introduction emphasize the urgency and positive aspects of DRS without fully addressing potential drawbacks.
Language Bias
While the article strives for neutrality, certain word choices lean towards promoting DRS. For example, describing CONAI's arguments as "resistances" implies a negative connotation. The phrase "virtuous system" when describing DRS also implies a positive judgment.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the benefits of DRS and the criticisms from CONAI, but omits discussion of potential downsides of DRS, such as the cost of implementation and maintenance for smaller businesses, or the potential for the system to be exploited. It also does not explore alternative solutions to improve recycling rates besides DRS.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as either traditional recycling or DRS, neglecting the possibility of improving current systems or combining them with DRS.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the implementation of Deposit Return Systems (DRS) in various countries to improve the collection and recycling of beverage containers. DRS incentivizes consumers to return used containers for a refund, thus promoting reuse and reducing waste. This directly supports SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by encouraging sustainable consumption and production patterns and reducing waste generation.