So there we are. They know it will waste resources to have such a scheme, but don't care. Provided they can punish a company they don't like, who cares about conservation. Certainly not them.

They are even proud of being a vindictive organisation, & there are still some people who don't as yet see them as a destructive dictatorial rabble.

Environmentalist views have to be treated with caution, as the Greens have shown that they are science and economics illiterate.

I accept the PC's conclusion that it's not 'cost-effective' because existing kerbside recycling exists and that general anti-litter programs are likely to be cheaper.

I realise it's unlikely I'll change your opinion on this and that's fine, but I will respond for the benefit of other readers.

You both miss my point that Australians may well be willing to bear the costs of the scheme for the benefits it creates (higher rates of recycling and less beverage container litter).

A complete societal cost-benefit analysis would consider this 'willingness-to-pay' along with the opportunity cost of inputs. The PC only considered opportunity cost of inputs and I believe they underestimate our willingness to pay for environmental and aesthetic benefits. South Australia is a 30+ year testament to this.

And at a practical level, as I said in my previous comment, this is also a form of 'polluter pays' that would internalise a cost currently being borne by all of us. A subsidy is worth fighting to keep and that's what you're seeing.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion but these ideas are well and truly grounded in sound economics.

Happy Easter!

May be grounded in green economics, Tristan, but that has nothing to do with sound economics.

Thanks for giving us even more evidence, to confirm that greens should never be allowed near our money.