Tomra - pantesystem. Sensasjonell utvikling i USA!

Da markerer jeg at sommerferien er over, eller iallefall går mot slutten for de aller fleste, med denne trådstaten om at en av de aller største nyhetene i Tomra Systems historie ser ut til å være under oppseiling i USA!

Jeg har tidligere postet om at to senatorer (fra henholdsvis California og New Mexico) kommer til å fremme lovforslag om at det innføres et nasjonalt pantesystem i USA. Dette forslaget er ute på høring frem til 21.august og får nå industriell støtte. Det aller gledeligste er imidlertid at ansvarlige tilsynsmyndigheter i California nå krever at guvernøren revolusjonerer det fallerte pantesystemet i delstaten som er en av verdens største økonomier. Det sies jo at det som skjer i California, skjer etterpå i resten av USA.

Tanken på et nasjonalt pantesystem i USA er mildt sagt besnærende i et Tomra-perspektiv...


Ambitious legislation focuses on plastics issues / Recycling front and centre / Bans on some single-trip products foreseen / Plastics industry voices support


Up to 21 August and possibly beyond, senator Tom Udall of New Mexico and representative Alan Lowenthal of California are seeking comment on wide-sweeping proposals to tackle the burgeoning plastics waste problem that may be hitting the often throwaway-happy US even harder than some other industrialised countries.


Wide-sweeping proposals resemble EU strategy

Under the Udall-Lowenthal plan – that in some points resembles existing European legislation and the EU’s circular economy strategy – plastics producers would be required to design, manage and finance efforts toward end-of-life management of their products and packaging. They also would be expected to help cover the costs of waste management schemes as well as (along with state governments) promote awareness-raising measures addressing disposable packaging, filters, wet wipes, balloons and lightweight plastic bags. Industry also would be given “incentives” to develop products that are less polluting.

The pair’s legislative ideas also extend to a national deposit-return scheme for beverage containers, whereby major beverage retailers would be obligated to install and operate reverse vending systems to promote collection of containers.


The Plastics Industry Association (Plastics; and the American Chemistry Council (ACC;, both based in Washington, D.C., have welcomed congressional efforts to deal with issues surrounding plastics. Steve Russell, VP of the ACC’s plastics division, said the association “is proud to support SOS 2.0, which will build upon the progress the industry is making to address marine debris across the world.” Patty Long, interim president and CEO of Plastics – see of 02.08.2019 – said new congressional proposals such as the marine debris response trust fund as well as more research to understand the root causes of plastics pollution and federal support for improving water and waste management infrastructure “are all critical to any effort to address the threat of marine debris.”

Published on 09.08.2019

Consumer Watchdog urges Governor to take urgent steps on recycling

Consumer Watchdog today urged Governor Newsom to crack down on the state’s recycling regulator CalRecycle and to take urgent steps that save the state’s bottle deposit program in the long and short term.


“The closure of the largest recycling chain in the state, rePlanet, has cut the number of recycling centers available to Californians in half over the last six years,” Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court wrote in a letter to Governor Newsom. “CalRecycle has long known about these problems, but it has failed to act.”

“CalRecycle has failed to save the redemption centers, to force the retailers to live up to their legal obligations, to hold beverage companies accountable for bilking the state and to honestly present the financial ledger of the recycling program,” Court wrote. “The leadership of CalRecyle needs to change its attitude and treat this crisis as a crisis or it needs to be replaced. We suggest an immediate job review for the director of CalRecycle and possible replacement depending upon on its findings.”

Court wrote, “Most troubling, CalRecycle has failed to live up to its obligation to issue financial reports required by the legislature for the last thirteen months. In a moment of crisis, when the public and legislature needed to know how much the state held in unredeemed bottle and can deposits, CalRecycle’s failure to report on those fund balances left us blind.”

“This is gross mismanagement that should not be tolerated. The leadership of CalRecyle needs to change its attitude and treat this crisis as a crisis or it needs to be replaced. We suggest an immediate job review for the director of CalRecycle and possible replacement depending upon on its findings.”

“California’s landmark Bottle Deposit law of 1986 is broken and CalRecyle is busy catering to the concerns of various special interest groups that have left the program in gridlock. Grocers, beverage companies, and waste haulers have shirked obligations, both legal and financial, with impunity. Redemption centers are failing and CalRecyle is not helping them survive. It’s time for a new day for recycling in California.”

In the short term, Consumer Watchdog recommended that CalRecyle should:

1. enforce the law and crack down on grocers and retailers that are obligated to take back bottles and cans to make sure they are informing customers of their duty and performing their redemption obligations;

2. immediately report how much consumer deposit money it holds in state accounts and file timely quarterly reports as required to under the law;

3. embark on a high profile public education and enforcement campaign to let consumers know they have an easy way to redeem their bottles and cans, and that grocers and retailers will be penalized for not living up to their obligations.
Court wrote: “In the long term, a special session of the legislature or gubernatorial strike force is needed to modernize the bottle deposit laws based on the best available research about successful programs across the nation and world.

We recommend you direct the Cal-EPA to evaluate options for:

1. reforming California’s bottle bill program with a mandatory 90% recycling target;

2. requiring all major retail chains that sell beverages to redeem them without exemption;

3. moving financial and operational responsibility to the beverage companies.

“Successful beverage container deposit programs around the world have these attributes. California’s program must be reformed. Consumer convenience must be paramount. Accountability and efficiency for recyclers should be incentivized.”

Tired of Plastic Junk? Recycling Bills Propose Dramatic New Rules

CALmatters August 11, 2019

As bills that take aim at plastic waste make their way through California’s legislature, the damage they intend to fix already is rippling through the state’s recycling economy.

On Monday, rePlanet, a major collector of beverage bottles and cans, shut its 284 collection centers in California, citing lower subsidies from the state as well as challenges facing recyclers and municipalities across California: higher operating costs and dwindling returns from post-consumer recyclables.

It was a vivid example of challenges threatening the ability of Californians to recycle and helps explain the progress a trio of bills is making through the legislature. All aim to change the economics of recycling by legislating a tough financial incentive for manufacturers.

Two of the bills, authored by Democrats Lorena Gonzalez in the Assembly and Ben Allen in the Senate, are identical and would require manufacturers to reduce waste from packaging and certain plastic products. The other, by Assemblyman Phil Ting, calls on manufacturers to increase the minimum recycled content in plastic beverage bottles over the next decade.

All of the bills have cleared their houses of origin and their authors say they are cautiously optimistic they will pass in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and Senate.


Revamped ‘bottle bill’ with reduced deposit tax filed for 2020 session

By John Haughey | The Center Square Aug 8, 2019 Updated Aug 8, 2019

State Sen. Kevin Rader has again submitted his proposed "Florida Beverage Container Deposit Act" seeking to make Florida the nation’s 11th state to impose a refundable tax on recyclable cans and bottles beginning in 2021.

Rader, D-Boca Raton, and fellow South Florida Democrat, Rep. Richard Stark of Weston, sponsored similar legislation last year in both chambers but neither gained traction in committees.

The 2019 bill would have required consumers to pay a 20- to 30-cent tax – which would be the highest in the nation – on glass, aluminum, steel, “bimetal,” or plastic, including polyethylene terephthalate, high-density polyethylene, “and all other plastic types and grades” beverage containers holding between 6 fluid ounces and 1 gallon.

Rader’s 2020 version would reduce that tax to 5 cents for each beverage container between 6-25 fluid ounces and 10 cents for each container between 25 fluid ounces and 1 gallon.

Consumers can get that upfront tax back when they bring the empty containers back to grocery stores and “redemption” centers.
Redigert 13.08.2019 kl 13:28 Du må logge inn for å svare


As California’s recycling industry struggles, companies and consumers are forced to adapty PIPER MCDANIEL

AUG. 14, 2019 5 AM

Visiting the Burbank recycling center is like stepping into an archaeological dig. Everywhere there is evidence of consumption — kombucha bottles, cardboard delivery packages, plastic water bottles, toothpaste tubes, vitamin bottles and plastic bags.

“Our garbage tells our story,” said recycling coordinator Kreigh Hampel. “It drives home how disposable our lives are.”

Not long ago, these byproducts of a throwaway lifestyle found a market in China, allowing Americans to toss their garbage in recycling bins with a seemingly clean conscience. But in late 2017, China imposed a stringent ban on imports of certain scrap papers and plastics, creating a glut of material and roiling the global recycling industry.

Now, as still more Asian nations prepare to follow China’s lead, California’s recycling industry is struggling, posing hard choices for a state that prides itself on its image as an environmental beacon. A big hit came this month when RePlanet, California’s largest operator of recycling redemption centers, shut down and laid off 750 employees.

Consumers and industry alike will need to brace for big changes.

“The Chinese ban and everything else in the last couple of years made us realize we are living in a pretend world of ‘wishcycling,’” said Roland Geyer, an industrial ecology professor at UC Santa Barbara. “What we’ve tried hasn’t worked.”

To go beyond “wishcycling” — the assumption that everything in the blue bin gets recycled — consumers will need to change their purchase practices, avoiding single-use containers and packaging that have no recycling value, experts say. Industries that produce these products will need to be held responsible for their life-cycle impacts, possibly in the form of legislative mandates.

“We’ve always recognized that, for many materials, we’re going to have to have producer responsibility,"said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, a Sacramento conservation group. “That idea is not new.”

China started banning certain scrap imports partly because of complaints that the United States was shipping “contaminated” and poorly sorted recyclables, and also because of internal changes in the Chinese economy and waste management systems.

The shift has prompted increased investment in U.S. recycling plants to fill the void. Nonetheless, scrap waste is piling up in warehouses and parking lots. Some is ending up in waterways, oceans, landfills and incinerators. In nearly all cases, waste disposal is more expensive.

“It’s had a significant impact,” said Navnit Padival, senior engineer at the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. “The United States and the world over have been affected by China’s ban.”

The result: Companies that once turned a profit selling our used yogurt containers and water bottles now have accumulating piles of garbage and no place to sell it.

Within Los Angeles County alone, three recycling centers and two materials recovery facilities have closed since 2018, and as profits dwindle, many are operating at a loss and potentially risk closure.

About a decade back, the Burbank Recycle Center earned roughly $50,000 a month on recycled materials. In the last year, the value of recycled goods plunged so low that it was paying as much as $40,000 a month to outlets overseas just to get rid of the material. It’s gotten so expensive that the center is resorting to the landfill.

At the recycling center, the warehouse is dominated by a pile of material roughly the size of a house, which slowly moves onto a conveyor belt to begin an elaborate, multi-step sorting process. The machine song of the sorting line drowns out all other noises, as some 25 workers sort through the sun-faded plastic and broken bottles.

“We just don’t have a market for a lot of this stuff,” Hampel said. “We’re sending bales of plastic up to our landfill now and just burying it.”

A collapsed market also translates to higher rates for residents — because the trash haulers who pick up blue bins at the curb rely on profits from selling them to operate. Without that revenue, haulers are having to raise their prices. Republic Services, which provides hauling services nationally and within Los Angeles, has begun raising its average $4-$6 weekly rate by as much as $1.50 a week in some places.

While the industry stalls, residents and businesses are consuming and generating more waste than ever. In 2014, Los Angeles County generated approximately 22 million tons of waste. By 2018, that number had climbed to 30 million tons.

Some see the current crisis as a wake-up call about the realities — and limitations — of recycling.

Fortsetter i neste innlegg
Redigert 21.08.2019 kl 18:27 Du må logge inn for å svare

Fortsettelse fra forrige innlegg

Even during the days when China absorbed the bulk of American recyclables, much of what it purchased wasn’t actually recycled. After more desirable materials were gleaned, some of it was burned or sent to landfills, said David Colgan, director of communications at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability.

Even when a product is recycled, said Geyer, the UC Santa Barbara professor, its eventual destination is still a landfill. In the heyday of recycling, millions of tons of garbage still went to the landfill, and the production of virgin plastics increased at a steady rate alongside recycled products. Between 2010 and 2018, 36 landfills in California expanded and a new one opened.

At the same time, the number of CRV recycling centers — where the public can recycle bottles and cans in exchange for a refund — has been steadily declining statewide, with 996 closing since 2015,said Lance Klug, a spokesman for CalRecycle, a state agency.

The environmental cost comes in the form of methane gases emitted by landfills and the plastics and waste that end up in waterways, oceans and wildlands, often harming fish and wildlife.

“Plastic is already everywhere in the environment by now, and it will get more and more pervasive in higher concentrations and higher levels,” Geyer said.

Despite imminent gridlock, some say the situation calls for reform, not abandonment, of the recycling industry. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works is unveiling a campaign to encourage people to keep their recyclables well-sorted and clean, which will reduce contamination and make the recycling process more efficient.

“A lot of people have built up good recycling habits in recent years, and we want them to keep up those habits,” said Coby Skye, assistant deputy director for environmental programs at the Public Works Department.

Still, researchers and environmental advocates emphasize that simple changes to recycling habits won’t be enough. The recycling industry itself leaves a footprint resulting from its industrial processes, and even at its most efficient, it doesn’t outweigh the waste produced.

“We need to stop looking at recycling as a primary solution to our waste problem,” said Colgan, of UCLA.

A focus on recycling also shifts the burden to consumers, he said, while ignoring other avenues of sustainability, such as production and re-use.

In California, multiple reform bills are moving through the legislative process, including Assembly Bill 792, which would target beverage container producers by enforcing minimum requirements for recycled materials in production, and AB 1080, known as the California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, which would require that all single-use plastic products and packaging products in California be recyclable or compostable by January 2030.

Industry lobbyists have fended off previous legislative attempts to regulate single-use containers and may do so again.

“The transformational question before policymakers is ‘who should be responsible?’” said Murray, adding that manufacturers want to maintain the status quo because they profit from continuing to buy cheap virgin materials with no disposal obligations.

In the recycling industry, strong markets remain for many goods, such as paper, cardboard, and aluminum. But there’s a growing volume of plastics and mixed plastics — things like plastic-coated cartons or potato chip bags— that no longer have a recycling value or never had one in the first place.

The path forward is uncertain.

“The U.S. is having a come-to-Jesus moment,” said Hampel, Burbank’s recycling coordinator. “Recycling is not going to undo the damage done by consumption.”

Times staff writer Alex Wigglesworth contributed to this report.
Redigert 21.08.2019 kl 18:30 Du må logge inn for å svare

Is recycling collapsing in California? Advocates call on lawmakers to rescue it

Andrew Sheeler
Sacramento Bee•August 19, 2019

When rePlanet closed its doors at its remaining 284 California locations earlier this month, alarm bells went up among recycling advocates.

The recycling chain cited a reduction in state subsidies, reduced prices for aluminum and plastic and rising operating costs as the reason for shutting its doors.

The closure of the largest recycling center in California is a symptom of a much larger problem facing the Golden State, argues Martin Bourque, of the Ecology Center, a Berkeley-based nonprofit.

“The paradigm of using disposable packaging for everything, and then ‘recycling it,’ that model is now showing its weaknesses,” Bourque said. “It has a lot of costs in it. We’ve been able to externalize those costs to other countries for the last 20 years.”

For years, the U.S. has relied on China and other developing countries to accept bulk, unsorted recycling — paper, plastic, and plenty of unrecyclable materials that have to be sorted out. But now, with commodities depressed in value, those countries are becoming much more selective in what they’ll accept, Bourque said.

“We can no longer externalize those costs. We’re going to have to face those costs here in the U.S.,” he said.
Redigert 21.08.2019 kl 19:11 Du må logge inn for å svare

Ting skjer nå i California! Under innledningen av og slutten på omfattende artikkel fra Los Angeles Times.


It’s crunch time for California’s plan to phase out single-use plastics by 2030

SEP. 5, 2019 5 AM

SACRAMENTO — With pressure mounting to address the state’s recycling crisis, California lawmakers are close to deciding on three far-reaching pieces of plastics legislation, including one that would phase out non-recyclable single-use packaging containers by 2030.


All three bills have passed one of the two legislative chambers, and await votes before the Sept. 13 close of the legislative year. If passed, they will go to the governor, who would have until Oct. 13 to take action on them.

“We do have a waste management crisis here in California. We need to address it; we need to do it for the sake of our cities and our communities,” said Allen. “But at the same time we also need to show the rest of the world that they can and ought to be doing something about this.”

Redigert 06.09.2019 kl 09:51 Du må logge inn for å svare

Veldig spennende i California altså. Her er de seneste interessante artiklene jeg har funnet.

September 06, 2019 02:15 PM

California heads to decision point on tough plastic laws


California lawmakers are moving ahead on plans that could dramatically reshape how plastic packaging is regulated in the state, with final votes on two pieces of legislation possible in coming days.

The most far-reaching proposal would potentially require 75 percent recycling rates for single-use plastics and some plastic-lined paper packaging by 2030. A second would mandate 75 percent recycled content in PET bottles, also phased in by 2030.

Both bills passed preliminary votes by comfortable margins and have been the focus of behind-the-scenes negotiations in recent weeks, as the state Legislature faces hard deadlines on action. New versions could be unveiled in coming days.


California Bill Puts Recycling Onus on Plastic Manufacturers. They’re Not Happy About It

By Kevin Stark
Sep 9

As soon as this week, California lawmakers could vote on legislation aimed at dramatically reducing plastic pollution from common manufactured goods like utensils, packaging and beverage lids.

The proposed legislation, companion bills AB 1080 and SB 54, is a first-in-the-nation attempt at requiring plastic manufacturers to take responsibility for the fate of their single-use products, many of which end up in landfills and oceans.

The rules could have dramatic implications for the plastic industry. If the legislation passes as written, companies would need to ensure that their products are recyclable or else face having them potentially banned.

Mer California. Mye mer! Ekstremt spennende dette. Ja, selv om lovforslagene ikke skulle bli vedtatt i denne omgang, synes jeg det som pågår i California nå er ekstremt lovende. Hadde egentlig ikke drømt om at noe sånt som dette kunne skje i "Trumpland", og man sier vel "over there" at det som skjer i California etterhvert blir adoptert i hele USA. Så dette er bra for kloden og har selvsagt et enormt iboende potensial for en industriaktør som Tomra.

Her har dere fem ferske, interessante artikler. Er dere interessert, må dere gjøre resten av jobben selv. Det vil si å følge linkene, for å lese dem.

Recycling cans and bottles is hard enough. These bills could make it nearly impossible

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 07:01 AM, UPDATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 07:42 PM

Editorial: California should phase out use of plastics that aren’t recyclable

It’s time that the state stopped using the Pacific Ocean as a garbage dump

PUBLISHED: September 10, 2019 at 5:10 am | UPDATED: September 11, 2019 at 8:21 am


Californians deserve recycling legislation that is more than a talking point

PUBLISHED: September 10, 2019 at 5:19 pm | UPDATED: September 10, 2019 at 5:19 pm

NewsEnvironment & ScienceNews

California considering toughest plastic pollution laws in United States

Responsibility would fall on industry to recycle or reduce most packaging

By PAUL ROGERS | | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: September 11, 2019 at 6:00 am | UPDATED: September 12, 2019 at 3:24 am


California could become the first state to ban single-use plastics

By Zoë Schlanger4 hours ago
Redigert 12.09.2019 kl 22:03 Du må logge inn for å svare
14.09.2019 kl 15:53 3010

Du må ikke ta helt av nå da!
Du skriver: ".....det som skjer i California etterhvert blir adoptert i hele USA."
Panteloven er jo nettopp et godt eksempel på det motsatte!
California henger jo langt etter mange stater i USA. Og mange tiår etter de første!
Dessuten. hvis det blir en føderal lov, så vil nok Tomra få sterk konkurranse fra selskaper i USA.

Tomra er veldig høyt priset nå, og det ikke lett å se en betydelig oppgang på kort sikt - snarere tvert i mot.

Sluttkurs: 258,60 -0,61%

Takk for innspill ynot! Det er ikke mange av dem på Tomra-trådene, og av og til føler jeg meg da også som en slags ensom, litt bedrøvelig stand up komiker med et lite usynlig publikum og at det beste ville være å legge inn årene. Det er kanskje på tide nå. Vi får se. Har ikke allverdens tid akkurat nå, men skal prøve å svare deg.

"Du må ikke ta helt av nå da!"

Tja, jeg "tok av" når det gjelder Tomra Systems for drøyt to år siden da jeg kjedet meg litt (var utenfor Oslo Børs/aksjemarkedet som jeg på generelt grunnlag har liten sans for) og brukte en time på å sette meg inn i selskapet. I tiden har gått siden da, har begeistringen bare vokst og er stadig voksende. Så sånn er det med det. Det hører med til historien at jeg var inne i selskapet med et femsifret antall aksjer i etterkant av "finanskrisen" på den tiden det sirkulerte rykter om at Tomraskulle kjøpe tyske Tritec (nåværende Tomra Sorting Solutions). Inngang like over 30 kroner, utgang på rundt samme kurs etter noen måneder fordi jeg mistet tålmodigheten. Det sier seg selv at jeg skulle blitt værende, men etterpåklokskapen er den enkleste vitenskapen. Der er vi alle mestere.

Så som sagt, jeg tar fortsatt av. Vil noen vite mer om hvorfor, henviser jeg til det jeg har postet som selskapet her på forumet, men innrømmer lett at jeg ikke skjønner at ikke flere tar av når det gjelder et selskap som er klar, ja tildels soleklar global markedsleder innen de fire globale megatrendene Collection Solutions (pantesystemer), Sorting Food, Sorting Recycling og Sorting Mining som er identiske med selskapets fire forretningsområder. Vi snakker her om høyteknologi og et selskap som er et bunnsolid industriselskap som utbetaler utbytte og samtidig altså er globalt markedsledende innen høyteknologiske megatrender x 4!

"Du skriver: ".....det som skjer i California etterhvert blir adoptert i hele USA.""

Dette er ikke min påstand, men en generell påstand jeg har kommet over flere ganger når det gjelder Californias påvirkningskraft overfor andre stater i USA. California er dag også verdens femte største økonomi!

"Panteloven er jo nettopp et godt eksempel på det motsatte!
California henger jo langt etter mange stater i USA. Og mange tiår etter de første!"

Jeg er fullt klar over at 10 - 11 amerikanske delstater har egne pantelover. Noen fungerer bedre enn andre. California for sin del har hatt pant lenge og har en pantesats på 5 cent. Tomra var inne i California for årevis siden, men solgte seg (klokelig) ut. Problemet i California nå i dag er at både pantesystem og resirkulering av plast har brutt fullstendig sammen. For flere detaljer er det nettopp det denne tråden handler om så er man interessert i å gå i dybden, viser jeg til det jeg allerde har postet på tråden.

"Dessuten. hvis det blir en føderal lov, så vil nok Tomra få sterk konkurranse fra selskaper i USA."

Lignende påstrander kommer med jevne mellomrom når det gjelder Tomras panteteknologi. Faktum er at få bestrider at pantesystemer vil bli innført i stor skala globalt i årene som kommer, mye større skala enn det vi har sett til nå, og Tomra har fortsatt en global markedsandel på 75 - 80%. Ingen andre aktører eier og opererer pantesystemer slik Tomra gjør (i Litauen og de australske delstatene New South Wales og Queensland) med tilhørende nettsamfunn og mobilapper hvor de som panter bl.a. kan få pengen rett inn på konto (samarbeid med PayPal). Noen som tror at prestisjen som legges i kommende pantesystemer i f.eks. Storbritannia, Frankrike og Portugal av de respektive nasjonale myndigheter fører til at disse velger uprøvde løsninger fra mindre spillere når anbudsvinnerne når det gjelder de viktigste byggesteinene i pantesystemene deres skal utpekes..

"Tomra er veldig høyt priset nå, og det ikke lett å se en betydelig oppgang på kort sikt - snarere tvert i mot."

Denne overlater jeg helt og holdent til markedet, men i mine øyne har Tomra et enormt potensial og i bakhodet surrer et utsagn CEO Stefan Ranstrand kom med under Capital Markets Day i fjor høst. "Until now we've oly seen the lab version, now is the time for the real Tomra". "Alle" eksperter sa forøvrig at aksjen var for dyr da jeg ikke inn på ca. 115 for to år siden (husker bl.a. at DNB hadde kursmål 105 og ble værende på det lenge selv om kursen steg gradvis).

Så til det tråden konkret handler om. Et av tre lovforslag med relavans for pant og resirkulering av plast ble vedtatt som lov av kongressen i Califoronia natt til lørdag (lookal tid) mens de to mest omfattende ikke kom opp til votering da forslagsstillerne ikke greide å samle nok stemmer som en følge av intens lobbyvirksomhet fra deler av industrien, motivert av egeninteresser og frykt for økte kostnader. Begge disse lovforslagene vil imidlertid bli fremmet igjen i januar 2020. Forslagsstillerne er helt klare på dette og tror på gjennomslag da. Tida jobber helt klart for dem! Forslaget som ble vedtatt og gjort til lov, setter spesifikke krav til innhold av resirkulert plast i plastflasker så er helt klart et skritt i retning og en fin oppvarming til januar da de to forslagene som går lenger og er mye mer omfattende vil bli tatt opp til votering.


California lawmakers fail to act on recycling bills to phase out single-use plastics

SEP. 14, 2019 10:52 AM

California lawmakers adjourned early Saturday without acting on bills that would have made their state the first to partially phase out single-use containers, with supporters unable to overcome lobbying from industry opponents.

Two bills, Senate Bill 54 and companion legislation Assembly Bill 1080, sought to eliminate 75% of single-use containers by 2030, reducing the glut of unmarketable plastics statewide and laying the groundwork for a revamped California recycling industry.

Prior to the bills’ demise, advocates hoped California could create a template for reducing waste, including plastic bottles and containers that end up in waterways and oceans.

“We want to show that we can build a model that we can truly scale around the rest of the world,” said Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), author of SB 54. “We also need to show the rest of the world that they can and ought to be doing something about this.”

The bills came in response to China’s decision to become more selective about the scrap it accepts from the U.S., which has created a huge glut of collected plastics and mixed paper, depressing the market for many items. With little revenue coming in, many local and state governments simply shut down their recycling programs, opting to dump previously recyclable items in landfills.

The bills zeroed in on plastics, an industry that has sidestepped recycling standards that other producers, such as glass and cardboard, must meet.

According to the bills, the United States alone discards 30 million tons of plastic each year, and global production of plastics has reached an annual tally of 335 million — a number expected to more than triple by 2050.

Advocates hoped the legislation would prop up a recycling industry that at its apex only recycled a fraction of the materials collected.

“We’re only going to see more and more reports of plastic and microplastics invading the environment,” said Emily Rusch, Executive Director of CALPIRG. “We want to make sure that California is a leader and creating a path the rest of the country can follow.”

Allen, who introduced SB 54, and Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), author of AB 1080, sought to slow the production of virgin plastics and other nonrecyclable goods. Some industry groups opposed the emphasis on production, arguing for exemptions and winnowing down requirements.

Legislators and proponents of the bills said they attempted to work with all sides while developing goals for waste reduction.

“We have shown ourselves to be good-faith negotiators,” said Sen. Allen.

Opposition letters submitted early in the week came from the Grocery Manufacturers Assn., waste management industries such as Athens Services and the California Refuse Recycling Council, and members of the agriculture and glass manufacturing industries.

Some were concerned by the authority granted to CalRecycle, the entity charged with overseeing compliance, and a lack of specifics about how the bill would be administered.

“We remain opposed because we think there are some fundamental flaws in the bill which would prevent it from being implemented,” said Shannon Crawford, executive director of state government affairs for the Plastics Industry Assn.

Flere lesverdige artikler:

Redigert 15.09.2019 kl 22:32 Du må logge inn for å svare

Takk Kommentatoren. Jeg er enig i hvert eneste ord av det du skriver. Jeg er faktisk enda mer overbevist om at TOMRA vil bli et MEGA selskap internasjonalt de neste 5 til 10 årene. Men la tvilerne tvile. Jeg har aldri vært mer sikker i min sak som jeg er om TOMRA. Og det har jeg vært i mange år nå!! Det har jeg ikke gjort det dumt i kan man si ;-)

Lykke til alle TOMRA aksjonærer. En bedre måte å sikre pensjonen sin på skal man lete lenge etter!!!


Da ble TOMRA nasjonal vinner av European Business Award igjen!!! Dette sier vel bare litt om kvaliteten på dette selskapet!!

16.09.2019 kl 11:41 2553

Jeg håper da endelig ikke at du forsvinner helt. Jeg forstår godt at du kan føle deg litt ensom på Tomra trådene, men sjekk bare hvor mange ganger dine tråder blir åpnet så ser du hvor populær du er.
Du må ikke tro kommentarer uteblir på manglende interesse, de uteblir kun fordi du poster, kommenterer, analyserer med vedlegg så suverent at vi, leserne, er målbundet, blir fylt med så stor beundring og nyter din kunnskap + presentasjonen .
Du skriver så godt, samler så meget og server oss det på et fat så klart og tydelig. Alt dette arkiverer du i et system på HO som vi alle kan forstå og har den største glede av.
Tusen takk og som sagt, ikke bli borte helt da du vil i så bli et stort savn.
Ha en god uke.

Hyggelig skrevet av deg wwbwb! Vi får se, som sagt. Kanskje livner Tomra-debatten her til hvis jeg tar litt mindre plass? Det jeg imidlertid kan love, er at jeg blir værende i aksjen med uforminsket styrke ettersom jeg er overbevist om at det er nå fremover i tid vil få se at Tomras globalt markedsledende teknologiske løsninger for alvor vi bli adoptert i stor skala rundt om på kloden. Lobbyvirksomhet i profittens navn har lenge hemmet en slik utvikling, men følger man med, er det ikke vanskelig å se at man nå tas med buksene nede mens verden flommes over av plastavfall. Fremover får vi overalt se modeller hvor de som bringer emballasje til markedet og tjener penger på dette, må ta det økonomiske ansvaret for at emballasjen er 100% resirkulerbær, samles inn og resirkuleres. Det skulle da også bare mangle! Veldig bra for kloden. Veldig bra for Tomra.

Når det gjelder California spesifikt, ser jeg frem til denne dokumentaren som jeg helt klart vil prøve å få sett. Baner nok vei for at banebrytende lovforslag vedtas i januar 2020.

KCET's Award-Winning News Documentary Series SOCAL CONNECTED Returns Oct. 15 With New Episodes Highlighting Ten Seasons of Change-Making Journalism

PR Newswire PR NewswireSeptember 13, 2019

New Season Premieres with a Deep Dive Into Southern California's Recycling Crisis

BURBANK, Calif, Sept. 12, 2019 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- New Season Premieres with a Deep Dive
Into Southern California's Recycling Crisis


Upcoming episodes of SOCAL CONNECTED include (subject to change):

"Life in Plastic: California's Recycling Woes" Tues., Oct. 15 at 8 p.m. (PREMIERE)

A deep dive into California's struggling recycling industry reveals a 30-year corporate lobbying strategy to keep the myth of plastic recycling alive and well.

Producer: Gina Pollack
Redigert 16.09.2019 kl 13:41 Du må logge inn for å svare

Kvifor fell tomra 5% idag?
16.09.2019 kl 13:56 2423

Vel Tomra er en del av verden og det ville være naivt og tro at de ikke blir berørt av markedet generelt. Fremdeles er Tomra opp med over 28% i år og det i seg selv forteller oss hvor sterke de er.
16.09.2019 kl 13:57 2417

Hva tenker du @kommentatoren om kommende konkurranse her? Ettersom det er åpenbart at det er grep som må tas ift plastikk, så kan det jo være aktører (også statlige) som vil åpne opp et nytt market på hjemmebane. ++ politikk i oppdrag etc

Hva jeg tenker spiller egentlig ingen rolle royroy, men fakta er viktige! Tomra har i dag har en global markedsandel på oppunder 60% når det gjelder teknologi for sortering til resirkulering og en global markedsandel på 75 - 80% når det gjelder teknologi for innsamling (pantesystemer). Videre understreker ledelsen titt og ofte at man satser tungt på R & D (research and development) for å forsvare og øke markedsandelene sine. Dette er noe jeg setter spesielt pris på og verdsetter høyt. Forøvrig viser jeg til det jeg allerede har postet om selskapet på forumet når det gjelder selskapets posisjon og fremtidsutsikter som jeg tror er svært, svært gode.
Redigert 16.09.2019 kl 16:51 Du må logge inn for å svare

Slenger meg på her. Mange tror at det er bare å komme med konkurrerende maskiner/utstyr osv. Det er dette ikke. Man må ikke glemme at Tomra også har patenter på mange av disse tingene. Et pantesystem handler om mer en bare maskinene. Alt må fungere. Hele logistikken og serviceapparatet rundt det. Det her det blir vanskelig å velge noe annet en Tomra. Ettersom Tomra er tilstede globalt med innovasjon og bruker muligheter de andre bare kan drømme om. Det er også ekstremt viktig at et pantesystem fungerer 100% ved introduksjon at da blir vanskelig å velge en potensiell ny leverandør med svært lite eller ingen referanser. Det blir ren gambling. Det gjør man bare ikke!

Kurssvingningene vi har sett den siste uken / ukene er et spill. Her er det kun noen som presser (manipulerer) ned kursen ved å lempe ut små poster med den ene hånden (i håp om at andre også selger) for å kjøpe seg opp med den andre. Dette har jeg sett flere ganger. Har hatt Tomra i flere år nå. Perioder som dette går igjen. Gi det noen uker til så er vi plutselig i ATH igjen.

Redigert 16.09.2019 kl 14:57 Du må logge inn for å svare

Når det gjelder aksjekursen, kan det jo nevnes at CEO kjøpte 3 500 aksjer til kurs 260 så sent som 22.juli i år. Tiden vil vise om Stefan Ranstrand var helt på jordet da han gjorde den handelen...
Redigert 16.09.2019 kl 15:00 Du må logge inn for å svare
16.09.2019 kl 15:16 2312

Årsaken til fallet i dag er sikkert frigjøring av midler til å kjøpe oljeaksjer. Mange som har god gevinst i Tomra, og benytter anledningen til salg i dag.
Ikke det at jeg har gjort det.
Slenger meg på og takker Kommentatoren jeg også, og håper inderlig at du ikke slutter å poste dine eminente innlegg her på forumet.

Man kan vel trygt slå fast at de som eventuelt selger Tomra-aksjer for å spekulere i oljeprisstigning pga uroen i Midt-Østen ikke har særlig tidshorisont på sin Tomra-investering. :) Den delen av industrien som lager "virgin plastic" av olje har nok (dessverre) i (altfor) stor grad lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet mot politikere og myndigheter til nå, men kommer til å slite voldsomt fremover. Man er avslørt nå, på faglig grunnlag, og oponionen har dessuten reist seg i protest i et slikt omfang at det nå er protestene fra opinionen myndigheter og politikere som ønsker å bli valgt/gjenvalgt vektlegger mest. Denne prosessen er allerede irreversibel. Veldig bra for kloden. Veldig bra for Tomra. Takk for hyggelige ord og kjekt å høre at du setter pris på det jeg poster voila.
Redigert 16.09.2019 kl 17:09 Du må logge inn for å svare
16.09.2019 kl 17:43 2175

Hei Kommentatoren!

Vi setter veldig stor pris på ditt engasjement og gode oversikt hva angår Tomra og hva som rører seg i alle selskapene og divisjonene Tomra er engasjert i : ) Fortsett den gode researchen og postinga av svært interessante innlegg her på forumet ! Hilsen ydmyk Jossas som bare når deg opp til kneskålene hva gjelder oversikt og synspunkter på alt det Tomra er engasjert i.

Vermont er en liten delstat som har hatt pantesystem i 45 år. Nå vil man øke pantesatsene og la emballasjen til flere typer drikkevarer bli omfattet av panteordningen. Man vil også pålegge produsenter økt ansvar når det gjelder resirkulering av plastemballasjen de sender sine produkter til markedet i, ERP (extended producer responsibilities).

Lawmakers look to expand recycling in Vermont

By Calvin Cutler | Posted: Tue 6:46 PM, Sep 24, 2019 | Updated: Tue 7:26 PM, Sep 24, 2019

MONTPELIER, Vt. (WCAX) Vermont lawmakers are looking to expand laws next session to cut back on plastic waste.

Legislators are exploring expanding several of Vermont's recycling laws dealing with single-use plastics by making producers responsible for managing plastics at the end of their lives. These are called extended producer responsibilities and we've used them in Vermont in the past with waste like electronics and batteries.

Lawmakers are looking into using EPRs with plastic waste, as well.

Advocates are also trying to incentivize recycling by updating the state's bottle bill. Vermont's bottle bill began about 45 years ago as an effort to clean up our streets and highways. It has since grown to be one of the state's biggest recycling programs.

Advocates want to increase the refund for returning bottles as well as accepting water, wine and sports drink bottles.

"We need to find ways of getting material into that circular system. And the bottle bill, because it has cleaner material, can be used. And this is the plastics industry people saying this, it can be used more readily than other curbside programs to make a new PET bottle for instance," said Paul Burns of VPIRG.

Additionally next month, S.285 will go into effect. Instead of giving away unclaimed deposits to companies like Coca-Cola, Vermont will recapture them and use the money to fund clean water programs.

Lawmakers hope that by continuing to boost recycling initiatives, we can lead the nation in waste reduction.

All of Tuesday's suggestions could make it into some form of legislation next session.

Det "rører på seg" i flere stater i USA som ikke har pantesystem (10 av 50 stater har panteordning). Synes det er særlig oppløftende at det er en republikansk representant som står bak forslaget om innføring av pantesystem i Pennsylvania som vel har rundt 13 millioner innbygger. Wendy Ullmans livforslag får nå støtte fra vikige interessenter.

State, local officials support Rep. Ullman’s ‘bottle bill’

ByChris Ullery
Posted Oct 1, 2019 at 6:00 AM

Officials from state agencies and environmental groups support Bucks Rep. Wendy Ullman’s bill that would reimburse for returned single-use plastic bottles and similar items in an effort to cut down on plastic waste.

A local lawmaker’s bill could mean a 5-cent refund for returning single-use plastics, a program state and local officials and others say would go a long way in reducing plastic litter and waste.

Commonly known as a “bottle bill,” House Bill 1322 introduced by Rep. Wendy Ullman, D-143, of Plumstead, would establish a bottle and can deposit program similar to existing programs in 10 other states.

“With this bill, we can reduce litter while rewarding recycling,” Ullman said during a public policy hearing for her bill Monday afternoon in Doylestown Township.

The deposit program is similar to the nickel deposit glass bottlers would regularly offer in the 1960s — pay a nickel deposit, get it back with the empty bottle.

“This is not rocket science. This is re-inventing the wheel,” Ullman said.

More than a dozen other lawmakers from across the state heard from experts and state department heads during the policy hearing at the Heritage Conservancy headquarters at the Aldie Mansion on Old Dublin Pike.

Under its current draft in the House Finance Committee as of April 29, the program would be administered by the Department of Environmental Protection and establish “redemption centers” to collect and pay for returned plastics.

Doylestown Borough Councilwoman Wendy Margolis testified Monday that the program would likely be well received in communities like hers.
Redigert 02.10.2019 kl 14:33 Du må logge inn for å svare
08.10.2019 kl 19:09 1279

Takk for et serøst og fint svar på mitt innlegg!
Det er ikke så ofte man opplever det her inne når man påpeker man ikke er helt enig.

Og takk for mye god info om Tomra!

Jeg noterer meg imidlertid at jeg fikk rett i at TOM var høyt priset og har falt betydelig siden jeg skrev mitt innlegg over.(14.09.2019).
Sluttkurs: 220,400 -3,92%

09.10.2019 kl 11:15 1064

En artikkel i Finansavisen i dag påpeker nettopp det jeg har vært inne på.

RT: 210,800 -4,36%
10.10.2019 kl 10:10 837

Skal den under 200?

RT: 204,400 -3,40%
14.10.2019 kl 12:39 537

Støtte på ca 195?

RT: 202,800 -2,59%
14.10.2019 kl 12:43 526

Oslo (TDN Direkt): ABG Sundal Collier nedgraderer sin anbefaling på Tomra-aksjen til salg fra hold. Kursmålet nedjusteres til 150 kroner, mot tidligere 270 kroner, ifølge en oppdatering mandag.
> 44% nedgradering.

Oslo (TDN Direkt): DNB Markets nedjusterer kursmålet på Tomra-aksjen til 220 kroner fra tidligere 300 kroner, og gjentar en hold-anbefaling, ifølge en oppdatering mandag.
> 26% nedgradering.