Industry defeatism on bottle refunds

The Campaign to Protect Rural England's call to reintroduce bottle refund schemes in order to cut litter and increase recycling has received widespread support, including from the Guardian. The prime minister has promised to look sympathetically at the proposal. So it is very disappointing that industry bodies are trying to rubbish our research ( Response: A bottle deposit scheme would be costly and counter-productive , 1 October) rather than working with us to consider how such a scheme could work without burdening retailers and producers with excessive costs. We know that deposit refund schemes work and that they can increase recycling of drinks containers to 90% (currently, only 38% are recycled). We have now demonstrated that a scheme would be cost-effective, bringing benefits worth £1.2bn a year. It is an inescapable fact that, despite the admirable increase in kerbside collections, the majority of drinks containers still end up in landfill or polluting the environment in other ways. CPRE wants a deposit refund scheme because we believe it is the best way to increase recycling rates to 90% and to cut litter. But we would be delighted to hear from the packaging industry about any other scheme that can achieve similar results. Jane Bickerstaffe's depressingly defeatist article certainly didn't provide any ideas. Shaun Spiers Chief executive, Campaign to Protect Rural England