Sept 1, 2010

Hello again, Back For My Second “BLOG”...

I am going to talk over the next while about the interaction between the ENVIRONMENT, POLITICS AND THE MEDIA. These three things influenced my 15 year journey in waste management and are the subject of my book,TRASHED!

A key thing throughout TRASHED is how events and changes in life, and indeed the world, relate directly to PEOPLE. There is an interesting political dynamic taking place in the City or Toronto with the race for Mayor of Canada’s largest city and there’s a specific person who may be creating change.

The latest poll this weekend was interesting.

The REBEL (my words) is a councillor named ROB FORD, who is leading the other main candidate, George Smithermen, by 11 points. Shocking! Smitherman has his roots in the Provincial Liberal Party (he resigned from McGuinty’s Cabinet to run for Mayor). The establishment (read the NDP, Liberals, and most others in downtown Toronto including the majority of the media) are horrified at the thought of Ford winning.

Rob Ford is the guy who has consistently refused to spend his available council budget to promote himself while demanding that the City get its financial house in order. Rob Ford, the football coach, was wrongly accused of accosting a player and has managed to duck the issue of a DUI charge in Florida. Yes, it is that Rob Ford but he has withstood all the barrages (so far) and continues to lead the polls. This is a race to watch, with some interesting political implications.

It is interesting for one of my big three topics – THE ENVIRONMENT. That same poll asked supporters of the two candidates to identify the key issues that were of concern for Toronto. Taxes, wasteful government spending and transit lead the list. For the past two terms David Miller, the outgoing Mayor, has bragged that his objective was to make Toronto “The Greenest City in North America”, and he has spent millions of taxpayers’ dollars trying to do it.

But this poll was a reality check! For the Ford supporters, the environment ranked, are you ready for this – a big fat ZERO as an issue. For the Smithermen supporters it was only a mere ONE PERCENT! Bike lanes just aren’t doing it politically! A point to ponder. In my view, the garbage strike last summer showed that the entitlement and concessions which Miller and Toronto council gave to the unions is creating a backlash.

Realistic financial decisions are now at the forefront of people’s concerns, not the pie-in-the-sky promises regarding wish lists to make the City “green” and give-a-ways to the unions. Time will tell, (the election is in November) if “Rebel Rob” is onto something. It is well known that when times are tough economically, the environment starts to take a back seat to other more practical financial expenditures.

I think we are in for a long haul before our economy returns to pre-2008 levels, and politicians relying on environmental issues to get elected will get a “wakeup call” if Mr. Ford wins. If the poll is true, the expenditures on environmental priorities may take a hit in 2010 and beyond. And, I would expect, it won’t be just in Toronto, but in municipalities and other levels of government across Canada and North American.

www.trashedpoliticalgarbage.com
TRASHED! How Political Garbage Made the United States Canada's Largest Dump

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 4:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's food for thought about what's happening with European cars supposedly sent for recycling.

Million cars are scrapped illegally

by JOHN HIGGINSON

Illegal scrapyards that fail to stick to the rules about removing pollutants from vehicles are making a mint from disposing of up to a million old bangers a year, an investigation by Metro and Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies has revealed.

The cowboy dealers are taking advantage of the rocketing price of scrap metal in the rapidly growing economies of India and China. In ten years, its value has soared from £6 to £200 a tonne.

Merchants are eager to cash in, but they are not so keen on making sure a car is disposed of cleanly -- preventing its oil and other chemicals from seeping into the land.

One in every ten tonnes of hazardous waste in the European Union is believed to come from motor vehicles.

Under EU law, 'depollution' must be completed by all legitimate scrap merchants. They must also make sure that 85 per cent of scrapped cars are recycled.

It's an expensive business and backstreet merchants are getting around it by getting car owners to tick a box on their vehicle papers claiming they scrapped it themselves, says MEP Chris Davies.

He fears many drivers don't know what they're getting themselves into.

When they tick the box, they are claiming they have safely taken apart the vehicle bit by bit in line with EU regulations - a job that is beyond many mechanics. Legitimate businesses say they are being pushed to the brink of closure by the cowboys. Andy Kenny, of the End of Life Vehicle Recyclers Association, says authorised dealers are losing £200million a year -- half the industry's value -- to illegal merchants.

The government's own estimates say only 900,000 of the 2million cars scrapped this year will have a certificate to prove they were disposed of legally.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Good morning!!

I wrote a book called TRASHED – “Why the United States is Canada’s Largest Dump”, it took me over three years, I always thought it might lead to something, but never to writing a “BLOG”. Honestly, this may be showing my age, but I have never been on a BLOG in my life, until now. When Guy Crittenden suggested I become a Contributing Editor and provide the odd column for the magazine, I was flattered but when he suggested I write a BLOG, I thought he was crazy.

Guy told me that in order for the BLOG to have any value to the reader, I must be prepared to be available, have opinions and be consistent with them and not be afraid to say it as I see it. I particularly loved this one; he said; “hate the sin, not the sinner.” Maybe he is afraid I will get the magazine sued?

TRASHED was released in May and I write (not too favourably) about some of Canada’s and Ontario’s most famous politicians, Jack Layton, Bob Rae, Mike Harris (we both came from North Bay), Mel Lastman, David Ramsay, David Miller, and Premier Dalton McGuinty (yes – he is my second cousin and the guy who put us out of business). There have been no law suits yet. Keeping my fingers crossed!!!

Will I be able to provide some insights into topics that will bring you back? Well, time will tell. But I did spend over twenty years on one of Canada’s largest waste management projects, working to help solve the garbage disposal crisis in Ontario. When I started in 1990 Ontario was shipping about 1 million tonnes of garbage to Michigan and the USA. I understand from Rob Cook, Executive Director of the Ontario Waste Management Association, that today we have gone past 4 million tonnes. Does that make sense to you? Yes, I will have a few things to say about that.

For 20 years my life has revolved around issues relating to the Environment, Politics and the Press and I have learned a few lessons. Maybe I can share a few of those lessons learned with you over the next few months while offering comment on the people and events that continue to impact on major projects in Canada.

I spend 50% of my time in Ontario and 50% in Alberta. I read a lot and, depending on where I am; I try to skim nearly every newspaper I can get my hands on every day including Ontario papers, Alberta papers, the New York Times, the Economist and the Wall Street Journal to name a few. Each will often provide a different perspective on the same issues.

Comments to Come! The Power of the Press. Why the Oil Sands in Alberta may be losing the public relations war, (now there is a lesson; Alberta is the most beautiful place in the world and, in my view, has a population that cares as much about the environment as in any jurisdiction). Discussions on Wind farms, power plants in Ontario and yes, we will have some continuing comments on why the USA really is Canada’s (read Ontario’s) largest garbage dump.

So that’s my first BLOG!! Hope you come visit again!!

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 9:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Gordon McGuinty is a well-known waste entrepreneur and businessman. A lively and engaging speaker, McGuinty is also the author of the book "Trashed: How Political Garbage Made the United States Canada's Largest Dump" about his 14-year odyssey attempting to build the Adams Mine landfill project near Kirkland Lake, Ontario. An entrepreneur for over 30 years, Gordon McGuinty was responsible for the Rail Cycle North consortium, which included some of North America's largest rail and waste corporations and was awarded the largest waste management contract in Canada. Today, when he's not speaking to interested audiences, he divides his time between his residence in the mountains of Alberta and his office in Ontario.

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 5:09 PM | Permalink

I recently received this interesting note from Bill Sheehan, Executive Director of the Product Policy Institute based in Athens, Georgia, on a report cited by the Plastics Recycling Update Newsletter. First is his editorial comment and then the newsletter item. This should be of interest to anyone comparing single- and two-stream recycling with concerns about the quality of material gathered.

Writes Sheehan:

"The problem is curbside collection … By contrast, deposit systems or take-back systems can generate displacement rates of around 70 percent. Why? Because they have a much cleaner, purer collection stream that needs a lot less processing to make it into rPET. So, what we've said is either do it right (e.g., by using a system that collects high-quality material) or don't bother.”

Related fact: Plastic packaging accounts for a third of the system cost ($55 million) but only 6.1% of the tons managed in the Ontario Blue Box curbside program (the program with the best data).

Now here's the newsletter item:

From Plastics Recycling Update Newsletter 8/13/2010

1 Report questions sustainability of PET recycling

If you live in a country that doesn't have an adequate recycling infrastructure, a new report from SRI Consulting says you're probably better off just throwing away PET bottles and containers.

"The problem is curbside collection," explains the study's principal researcher, Eric Johnson, in an e-mail to Resource Recycling. "Collection rates can actually be pretty high [in Europe]. The German Green-Dot system collected about 80 percent of the PET bottles, but only about half of that quantity ended up displacing virgin PET. Sorting, washing, processing and so on loses a lot of material. By contrast, deposit systems or take-back systems can generate displacement rates of around 70 percent. Why? Because they have a much cleaner, purer collection stream that needs a lot less processing to make it into rPET. So, what we've said is either do it right (e.g., by using a system that collects high-quality material) or don't bother (e.g., landfill it), which generates a similar footprint at lower cost."

The study gauged sustainability of different waste management and reclamation methods by calculating the cradle-to-grave carbon emissions of products on each disposal trajectory. This analysis yielded some surprising results for the researchers, including the counter-intuitive finding that shipping bales over long distances had little impact on carbon emissions.

"Transport by ship and barge does affect the footprint, but not significantly, even when you send the bales to China (as is pretty common, from Europe)," says Johnson. "Transport by truck, for far less distance, makes more of a difference."

Overall, the study concludes that, for places without the geography and/or infrastructure to support it, recycling of PET actually has a higher carbon footprint than landfill. No doubt the report's controversial findings will be scrutinized closely when it is released in full. To read the accompanying release, or to contact representatives from SRI Consulting, click here...

Here is Bill Sheehan's contact info:

Bill Sheehan • Executive Director
Product Policy Institute
P.O. Box 48433 • Athens, GA 30604 • USA
706-613-0710 • bill@productpolicy.org
Twitter • LinkedIn • Facebook

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After what's happened in Ontario with eco fees I thought readers might appreciate this article from the Winnipeg Free Press about fees proposed for e-waste in that province.

Fee-based e-waste plan causing stir

Winnipeg Free Press
Thu Aug 5 2010
Page: A4
Byline: Lindsey Wiebe

Manitobans could pay more for new flat screens, stereos and other electronics under a proposed fee-based e-waste plan that's raising the eyebrows of environmentalists, who fear consumer backlash.

A draft of the long-awaited industry-led stewardship plan for Manitoba's electronic waste was made public late last week, and an open house is set for today at the Inn at the Forks.

The plan, submitted by a trio of industry associations, proposes a new "environmental handling fee" for electronics purchases in Manitoba. That cash would be used to cover the costs of recycling and handling e-waste, currently handled by the provincial government, but soon to be taken over by industry.

Some companies might include the fee in their ticket prices, but in general the fee will show up separately on receipts, according to the draft proposal.

One local environmental group is wary of the plan, pointing to the recent backlash in Ontario that led the province to scrap a host of newly announced fees on household products last month.

Eco-fees are "seen in the consumer's mind as something that government is imposing on them, that makes their costs higher," said Josh Brandon, Green Living co-ordinator for Resource Conservation Manitoba.

The organization would rather see costs of e-waste handling internalized in the price of new electronics, with different industry groups paying their share of recycling costs. Brandon said that approach would provide an incentive for companies to reduce costs.

Electronics Product Stewardship Canada president Shelagh Kerr said it's too early to say how much the fees would amount to in Manitoba. That organization, along with the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association, are responsible for the draft plan.

Opting for a separate fee, rather than building recycling costs into the sticker price, would "harmonize with other programs across Canada," Kerr said, and keep product prices consistent.

"Having the fee separate and visible for the service provided of collecting products back and recycling them, is important," she said. "Otherwise, it would be very difficult to have a national pricing policy."

In July, Ontario scrapped a controversial new set of eco-fees on thousands of household products after less than a month following widespread opposition. However, fees on electronics and some other products are still in place there.

The targeted start date for Manitoba's new program is April 1, 2011, according to the draft. Plans were first announced by the Manitoba government in 2007.

Brandon did see some cause for optimism, saying he likes the idea of retailers potentially serving as e-waste depots. He's still hoping for e-waste recycling help for people who don't have vehicles.

Manitobans can currently drop off their e-waste for recycling for free year- round at 10 depots, and until the end of October at 20 others. A full list is online at www.greenmanitoba.ca.

E-waste recycler Tom Syrota said the recycling program as run through the province's Green Manitoba office worked out well for taxpayers, and provided solid figures on costs and volume. He's not clear what changes might be in store. "I just think that of the four years we've done this program, we've proved it can run efficiently and economically," he said. "I'd hate somebody to change all that."

lindsey.wiebe@freepress.mb.ca

Want to know more?

The e-waste stewardship draft plan is open for comment until Aug. 9. The plan is posted online at www.intergroup.ca/ewaste/meeesp-draft.pdf. Today's open house runs from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. at the Inn at the Forks. Those who can't make it can watch a noon-hour webinar instead. Sign up for the webcast by emailing feedback@intergroup.ca or phoning 942-0654 and asking for Jeff.

How much?

Eco-fees on electronics are already in place in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Ontario. Fees vary slightly province to province. Electronics Product Stewardship Canada president Shelagh Kerr said it's too soon to know what Manitobans might wind up paying. In the meantime, here's a sampling of e-waste eco-fees in place in Ontario:

Laptop: $2.75

Desktop computer: $7.80

Computer monitor: $12.25

Big-screen television: $26.25

Mouse or keyboard: $0.40

Desktop printer: $5.40

Cellphone: $0.10

Land-line phone: $1.00

Digital camera or mp3 player: $0.40

Home stereo: $2.75

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 11:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An article from the July 31 edition of the Toronto Sun points up again how the media is exporing the problems associated with government contracting out public policy to a private organization that is neither accountable to the public nor subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

On of the learnings for the current Liberal government in Ontario is that programs developed by private interests need close supervision and scrutiny. There's nothing inherently wrong with telling industry that it must manage its own wastes and that it can propose a program to do so that meets certain environmental tests. What the government has run into recently is that there isn't any clear consequence for industry-led programs when they fail to collect the amount of material expected (e.g., electronics waste) or when "eco fees" collected from consumers bear no clear relationship with program costs (e.g., municipal hazardous or special waste program). How Stewardship Ontario itself functions internally and negotiates with certain other organizations (e.g., batteries) is unclear, and how Stewardship Ontario and StewardEdge and Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) interact is also unclear (at least to outsiders).

It seems that sometimes all the environment minister can do is threaten to write an angry letter, kind of like the Hans Blix puppet in Team America threatening the leader of North Korea (before he's dunked into the shark pool). Yet it was the government that had to take the heat for the problematic hazardous waste eco fees. Someone in WDO or government needs to do a better job overseeing these processes to make sure that the intended public and environmental benefit is achieved.

Here's the Sun article.

Toronto Sun A4

July 31st 2010

Stewardship Ontario makes confidential deal

ANTONELLA ARTUSO, Queen's Park Bureau Chief

Stewardship Ontario the government-created body that brought Ontarians the botched eco fee plan has signed a confidential battery recycling deal with an American-based outfit that scored poorly on a ‘mystery shopper' test.

The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation of Canada (RBRCC), a U.S. non-profit group with a Toronto office, hired well known Liberal lobbyist Bob Lopinski to lobby Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), the premier's office and several ministries to accept its proposal to recycle batteries in the province.

According to documents provided by the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, WDO raised concerns about the plan and RBRCC eventually withdrew its offer and negotiated a direct deal with Stewardship Ontario (SO), which falls under the oversight of Waste Diversion Ontario.

In response to QMI Agency questions about the contract, SO spokesperson Amanda Harper Sevonty said the organization would not provide any details.

"As we are a not-for-profit, private company and not a government agency, like any other private company, our relationships, contracts and work with suppliers is confidential and I am not in a position to share that with anyone," she said in an e-mail Friday.

Ontario Tory MPP Lisa MacLeod said the agency heavily criticized for its roll out of eco fees continues to operate under a veil of secrecy despite being created by the government and currently funded by provincial tax dollars.

Stewardship Ontario has been given the right to levy eco fees that amount to a tax on consumers and the public should have access to information about its contracts to ensure that they are not being unfairly charged, MacLeod said.

"Without a level of transparency, they're not going to be fully accountable to the public," she said.

RBRCC, set up by the U.S. battery industry in 1994, initially approached WDO to run the province's entire battery recycling program with SO as the enforcement mechanism.

The minutes of a WDO board meeting in February say that staff conducted a ‘mystery shopper' exercise, visiting 53 retail RBRCC rechargeable battery collection sites, and discovered that four locations could not be found at all, 13 directed WDO staff to another program and 13 outright refused to accept batteries for recycling.

Of the 23 locations that would accept batteries, only nine had boxes in visible view to consumers.

RBRCC President Carl Smith said the organization is the most successful product stewardship program in North America.

However, retail collection sites pose problems because staff working in the stores may be unaware of the program.

"So having awareness at a retailer is always going to be a little bit of a hit and miss," he said. "We've run a program across Canada for almost 14 years and have an installed base of sites in Ontario of about 2,000 sites but it's been always a voluntary program so no one has had to participate."

Once members of the public and retailers learn more about the mandatory recycling initiative in Ontario, the awareness of staff in stores should improve, he said.

For the last six months, RBRCC has identified preferred collection sites on its web site listings, he said.

Currently, he estimates that 10-12% of all recyclable batteries in Canada are recovered by RBRCC.

Under the contract signed with Stewardship Ontario which includes almost all types of batteries that rate must climb to 25% by 2012 and 45% by 2016, he said.

RBRCC does not charge eco fees to retailers or consumers, and existing members will not see their fees increase, he said.

Lopinski, of Counsel Public Affairs, said it is company policy not to comment on client files.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)