Just for fun I'd thought I'd liven things up today by sharing with you all a copy of my sister Danielle Crittenden's blog entry from today. She's something of a political pundit who lives in Washington and is a regular contributor to the well-known website and blog, The Huffington Post. I've pasted her hilarious entry below, but you can see all the blogs there at

Visit http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/

Her blog entry is a send-up of what we might find if we eavesdropped into a secret internet chat room discussion hosted inside the White House. What does this have to do with waste management? Well, nothing really, but we can have some fun here. I chose this entry because it pokes some fun at the Canadian scene and the recent federal election outcome. Which is also the topic of our new Speakers Corner survey (see the blue box on our home page). Does that count as a tie-in? Hope so!

Now, enjoy...

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN
01.31.2006
The Secret Presidential IMs: Now if only we could get Jon Stewart to host... (comments?)

Chat with kickass43 et al.

7:02 a.m.

BigBartlett: Mr. President?
BigBartlett: Everyone you asked for is assembled in the chat room.
BigBartlett: We're ready to go over the final draft of SOTU.
BigBartlett: Are you there, sir?
Kickass43: yep
BigBartlett: I suspect you're much happier with this version.
Kickass43: wdve liked mor jokes
Kickass43: ppl like jokes
Kickass43: 1st 10 mins is all "thank u"s
Kickass43: like thank u senator this
Kickass43: thank u senator that
Kickass43: thank u so&so 4 showin up
Kickass43: like COURSE they showd up
Kickass43: hottest tickt in tha capital
Kickass43: after coldplay
BigBartlett: Yes, sir.
Kickass43: so we need sum 1 liners rite off tha top
Kickass43: 2 get folks warmd up
BigBartlett: Well--you know what Karl says about humor...
BigBartlett: "The President should be funny but not too funny."
BigBartlett: It's not late-night TV.
Kickass43: is 4 me!
Kickass43: sides wherz wonderboy anyway?
Kickass43: he's not listd in tha chat room
BigBartlett: He'll be joining us for the practice later, Mr. President.
Kickass43: > :-/
BigBartlett: You'll see we were able to make all the changes you asked for, sir.
Kickass43: xept cda
BigBartlett: Canada is there, sir. Page 8.
BigBartlett: Para beginning,

All over the world, new democracies are emerging. I am proud to stand here and announce tonight that after twelve years of one-party rule, democracy has finally blossomed in our neighbor to the north (pause for applause)

Kickass43: snot wat I wantd danno
Kickass43: if u recall I wantd sumthin stronger ther
Kickass43: not jus tha democracy crap
Kickass43: but sumthin dat gave us mor credit 4 gettin ridda ther corrupt regime
Kickass43: unlike in frikkin palestine
Kickass43: wher we givem tha frikkin vote
Kickass43: & they elect a gang of frikkin terrorists
Kickass43: man they wernt usin no purpl ink ovr ther
Kickass43: they were stickin ther fingers in blood
NationalSecurityGuy: If I may weigh in here, Mr. President
NationalSecurityGuy: I was the one who toned down the Canada stuff.
NationalSecurityGuy: Even though Mr. Harper won the election, it's still a minority...
Kickass43: that sooo burns
NationalSecurityGuy: Yes. Thus Mr. Harper will have to govern cautiously, working with the other parties. It's almost like the coalition situation we have in Iraq.
Kickass43: yeh xept theyr not workin wit shiites and sunnis
NationalSecurityGuy: I see you haven't had many dealings with the Quebecois.
Kickass43: chretien wuz bad enuff
Kickass43: he cdnt tok english OR french
Kickass43: & man thos cdn frenchies
Kickass43: theyr not even like creoles--least THEY can cook!
Kickass43: evr eaten quebec grub steve?
NationalSecurityGuy: Haven't had that honor yet, sir.
Kickass43: they srvd it 2 me in ottawa
Kickass43: :-P
Kickass43: I'm like, "excusez-moi but could I have my steer w/out cheez curdz merci bocoo?"
Kickass43: theyr like "porkwa?"
NationalSecurityGuy: In any case, sir, we now have the opportunity to re-open dialogue with a new Canadian leader...
NationalSecurityGuy: on all kinds of issues...
NationalSecurityGuy: not least the oil sands they've discovered in northern Alberta...
NationalSecurityGuy: that contain potentially as much oil as in Saudi Arabia.
Kickass43: ?!
NationalSecurityGuy: In short, Mr. President, it wouldn't be prudent?
NationalSecurityGuy: to take too much credit for the Harper government's success
NationalSecurityGuy: at this time
NationalSecurityGuy: Indeed I thought you might want to make some mention of your desire
NationalSecurityGuy: to come to some agreement over softwood lumber
NationalSecurityGuy: not a commitment of course--just a suggestion that you're open for business
NationalSecurityGuy: I meant dialogue.
Kickass43: whoa steve
Kickass43: still reelin here
Kickass43: *as much oil as in Saudi Arabia *
Kickass43: :-D
Kickass43: wa-hoo!
Kickass43: so like--screw ANWAR?!?!
NationalSecurityGuy: Something like that, sir. If they can extract the oil from the sand, which is not an easy process.
Kickass43: wait
Kickass43: r ther like any cute baby animals who live near tha oil sands?
Kickass43: no big-eyed baby seals?
Kickass43: no fluffy white polar bers??
Kickass43: no"noble elk"???
NationalSecurityGuy: So far as I know, sir, just mosquitoes.?
NationalSecurityGuy: I should say BIG mosquitoes...
NationalSecurityGuy: In some countries mosquitoes of that size would count as wildlife
NationalSecurityGuy: But not even Canadians feel protective of their bugs, sir.
Kickass43: sweet
BigBartlett: So we're agreed we'll keep the language on Canada as is, Mr. President?
Kickass43: k fine
Kickass43: rite in wat steve sez on lumbr
Kickass43: next
SecStateUSA: Condi here, sir.
Kickass43: hi 5 girlfrien!!
Kickass43: u ROCKD!
Kickass43: rlly kickd ass
Kickass43: LUVd ur tuff tok bout hamas
Kickass43: man u jus keep on goin grl!!
Kickass43: btw
Kickass43: 1st lady & I miss YA!
SecStateUSA: I'm sorry, Mr. President, but it's been very busy, as you know.
SecStateUSA: I just have one quick point.
SecStateUSA: I think we have to insert something more into the speech about the Palestinian elections.
SecStateUSA: I'm glad we noted the historical importance of these elections.
SecStateUSA: But I think we have to be careful about saying what we will do or won't do in the future.
SecStaeUSA: Even sound hopeful about the democratic process...
Kickass43: rite
Kickass43: wat bout: "Long alienatd from tha democratic process, suicide bombrs will finally b representd in an electd parliament"
Kickass43: or: "Insted of tradishunal firewrks, joyous votrs torchd govt bldgs. & led pogrums in jeroosalem..."
SecStateUSA: I know you're very surprised and even angry about this.
SecState USA: We all are.
SecStateUSA: Who knew?
SecStateUSA: But for better or worse we are going to have to engage with the newly elected Hamas government--
Kickass43: ?!
Kickass43: c-grl u jus kickd hamas ass
Kickass43: & now u want ME 2 "engage" wit em?
SecStateUSA: I don't mean engage right now. I mean lay the groundwork for future engagement, which I'm afraid is going to be inevitable. Nothing too strong...
Kickass43: o no girlfrien
Kickass43: ur goin native on me
Kickass43: I knew it!!!
SecStateUSA: I beg your pardon, Mr. President?
Kickass43: I wondrd how long it wuz gonna take b4 colin got 2 u
SecStateUSA: I honestly don't know what you're implying, sir.
Kickass43: & dat dude chirac he jus oozes greasy charm don't he?
Kickass43: o yes the euros jus LUV condi in her d&g suits & her stormtrooper boots
Kickass43: u kno tha song thos dudes sing
Kickass43: "my chumps"
Kickass43: "watcha gonna do wit all dat cash, all dat cash, all dat cash..."
SecStateUSA: Mr. President!
Kickass43: "they jus keep on takin, they jus keep on takin, takin & keep on demonstratin..."
SecStateUSA: Forgive me but I don't see how this relates---
Kickass43: "I met a girl down at tha disco, she said hey hey lets go to UNESCO...."

SecStateUSA has left the chat.

BigBartlett: Mr. President, I believe we should address the Secretary of State's very valuable point.
Kickass43: fine!
Kickass43: nada $$$ 4 r terrorist amigos
Kickass43: dont care if they win tha effin caucuses in iowa
Kickass43: they aint gettin no moolah from us
Kickass43: aint tokkin 2 em neither
Kickass43: till they renouns violens
Kickass43: which will b wen tha devil givs up smokin
Kickass43: kno wat im sayin
IheartUSA: Mr. President, if I may just weigh in here for a moment.
Kickass43: go ahed karen
IheartUSA: As your undersecretary of state to the Islamic world...
IheartUSA: you know how many inroads I have made personally...
IheartUSA: into the hearts and minds of Islamic women and children...
IheartUSA: I was swarmed wherever I travelled...
IheartUSA: by darling little girls in hair ribbons...
IheartUSA: their mothers in hijab...
IheartUSA: determined to tell me that their mullahs who spewed such hatred towards us...
IheartUSA: did not speak for them...
IheartUSA: indeed they wanted me to understand that they don't hate us...
IheartUSA: to truly, really, honestly understand that...
IheartUSA: in my own heart and mind...
IheartUSA: and also to give them Bic pens.
Kickass43: wats ur point??
IheartUSA: I agree with Condi that we can't simply slam a door on the Palestinian people just because they elected a gang of murderous thugs.
BigBartlett: I think the wording as we have it now will do, Mr. President. We'll just repeat your language about not sponsoring or engaging with any state that supports terrorism and leave it to Condi to figure out how we're going to get around it.
Kickass43: Not.
BigBartlett: Of course, sir.
Kickass43: now wat bout SCOTUS
Kickass43: I askd 4 an alito victry lap
Kickass43: rally tha base
Kickass43: now that "hurricane harry" has blown ovr
Kickass43: we're battin 2 fer 2!
BigBartlett: Funny you should mention it, sir.
BigBartlett: I DID insert a section about our success with the supreme court...
BigBartlett: and yet when copies of the speech were made, those parts were mysteriously excised.
BigBartlett: I just noticed that it's missing from this draft too.

Hmiers has left the chat.

BigBartlett: I'll make sure that gets put back in. I'll make the copies myself.
Kickass43: so we're cool?
Kickass43: nuffin else?
BigBartlett: So long as you're "cool" we're "cool" Mr. President. Ha ha, sir.
Kickass43: jus 1 mor thing danno
Kickass43: durin rehersal cd u tok 2 tha veep?
Kickass43: tell im he needs 2 wrk on his"listenin face"
Kickass43: otherwise he jus sits ther kinda slumpd behind me
Kickass43: like he's had anudder heart attak
Kickass43; mouth open
Kickass43: eyes rolld up
Kickass43: man sum1's gonna call 911
Kickass43: & tha capitol fuzz gonna carry im out on a stretcher
Kickass43: recks tha mood
Kickass43: giv im a spicy burrito or sumpin jus b4 tha speech
BigBartlett: Yes, Mr.President.

Kickass43 has left the chat.

The Secret Presidential IMs appears every Tuesday.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 1:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today we welcome Usman Valiante as our first blog columnist, in addition to me, the editor.

Usman Valiante is a consultant with extensive experience in the waste diversion field, with special expertise in such things as used-oil recovery, deposit-refund systems for used beverage containers, hazardous waste treatment and disposal, product stewardhip program design and so on.

He is a contributing editor to Solid Waste & Recycling magazine and has written numerous articles on a wide range of topics. I value Usman's contribution not only because of his knowledge and writing ability, but because of his "damn the torpedos" willingness to express strong views on controversial issues.

Whether you agree with Usman or disagree, I hope you enjoy reading his magazine articles and blog posts on this website, and at least think of them as thought provoking. Best wishes Usman, and don't ever hold back from telling us what you really think!

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just to let you all know, I'm in the final stages of editing the articles for the upcoming February/March edition of the magazine, and want to point out two things.

First, our cover story summarizes findings from our annual online industry survey. I just finished writing this article, which meant I had to spend some "quality time" with the answers from respondents. The results are just fascinating, and it's an article I'm sure you won't want to miss.

Second, my editorial this time is about the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and its French Rabbit wine distribution and environment fund scheme. French Rabbit is being distributed in a Tetra-Pak type of container, and the LCBO is encouraging winemakers to supply more of their products in these packages. My editorial analyzes this issue, the challenges it presents, and how the program may not be as environmental as it's cracked up to be.

I will supply more updates and details about that topic over time in this space. Stay tuned!

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

As was predicted, the Conservatives won the federal election last night, but were held to a minority. Other spaces will analyze the significance of the political shift to the right and so on; I'd like to make a few quick comments and mention what this implies for environmental issues.

1) The Liberals managed to win 103 seats, so it may be that Conservative win was more about punishing the Liberals temporarily for the sponsorship scandal, and less about the country embracing any right-wing agenda. Harper and crew will have to take a very centrist approach on many issues if they hope to keep the Liberals at bay in a future election.

2) Ongoing suspicion of a right-wing social agenda (e.g., Harper's reluctance to come right out and say he supports "a woman's right to choose" an abortion, and the gay marriage issue) was what likely prevented a Conservative majority. A lot of this fear was hyped up by the media, which tends to be left-leaning in Canada. If Harper can show over the next year or 18 months that he truly has no radical right wing social agenda, and if he otherwise governs wisely, he could win another election, and possibly a majority next time. People are fed up with the patronage, the violent gun crime, and especially the tax burden and enormous so-called "surpluses."

3) The most startling results were the total shut out of the Conservatives in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Two NDP wins were the only break in Toronto's sea of red. This indicates, of course, a deep urban/rural split. Harper will only be able to put together a future majority if he can adopt policies that appeal to the urban elites.

4) Even people who are not Conservative should welcome the news that there is now a broad-based, national alternative to the Liberals. Canada was becoming like a one-party state, with all the corruption and cronyism that implies. Hopefully we'll have at least two strong parties that can take turns governing from now on.

5) You're going to hear a lot in the weeks to come about how the Conservatives are anti-environmental. I have several thoughts on this, starting with the premise that most of that is bunk. The Liberals do a good job of "looking" like they care about the environment, while in fact do little about it. At least with the Conservatives we might get a bit of frankness. The recycling and composting industries, and waste management in general, will not be affected much by the political change. Those industries' issues are mostly municipal and provincial.

6) I respected Harper for having the guts to say during the campaign that he'll get Canada out of the Kyoto agreement. To urban elites, this probably sounded akin to his gay marriage mutterings. If and when he gets us out of Kyoto, you can expect all kinds of negative press coverage about how this proves that Harper is a sort of George Bush. However, let's set aside how the famous "hockey stick" diagram of supposed rising temperatures has been totally discredited in the scientific community (although I gather Environment Canada still uses it, which is outright fraud in my books). Canada was the "boy scout" at the Kyoto talks and was totally out-negotiated into agreeing to terms that are terrible for this country, while many European countries got off scot free. The USA -- our largest trading partner -- has not, and will never, ratify Kyoto. A big part of our economy is energy exports to the United States, so under Kyoto we pay the penalty for emissions, while our biggest customer does not. It's ridiculous and very unfair. And China and India are also not covered by Kyoto. So, while I think emissions reductions and energy efficiency are important topics, I am completely in favor of Canada abandoning the Kyoto agreement, and you should be also, even if you think global warming is occurring and is man-made.

There are other environmental issues, but this is the big one, and I'll write more about it another day.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 6:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hi everyone! Or make that "Buenos Dias!" I'm back from sunny Mexico, refreshed from the two-week holiday, and ready for action. There were some interesting news stories while I was away and I'll comment on some of them later (e.g., Toronto hiring more garbage inspectors).

But the item for today concerns getting out and voting. I kept up a bit while away about the polls and the possibility of a Conservative government in Ottawa. I'm not going to get into detail here about why I think this is a good thing. First it would take up too much space and second this is not the right forum. Suffice it to say that at a bare minimum I agree with those who say the Liberals need some time in the wilderness as punishment for their various misdeeds (i.e., the sponsorship debacle). Paul Martin was a great finance minister, but "Mr. Dithers" was a lousy prime minister and I am tired as hell of his nattering on about "values" without being specific.

It was interesting to catch up on the newspapers and notice the shrill and desperate tone of Martin's attacks on Stephen Harper. I have met Mr. Harper and heard him speak at a Rotary breakfast, and I found him not at all like the media has portrayed. In no way did he come across as extreme or "scary." I'm not "blown away" by the guy, but I think he deserves a chance at governing and could do no worse than Martin. By the way, I was disgusted by the way the Globe and Mail "spun" various poll results with front page headlines to try and undermine poll suggestions that Harper could form a majority. I have written extensively for the Globe and know a few people in their newsroom and you'd be surprised how many hard-left people (I mean hardcore NDP supporters, not just Liberals) work in what presents itself superficially as a rather grey business publication. If you're left of centre, don't be offended by this comment. What I'm talking about is journalists and editors trying to affect the election outcome by misreporting facts with misleading headlines. They should save their opining for the editorial and op-ed pages.

I would like to see the Conservatives win a majority government if for no other reason than stability. This country is being torn apart by regionalism and the presence of four major parties in the House of Commons. But the polls suggest it will be a narrow minority, so I expect we'll be out voting again in another 18 months. This is bad for our currency and our public life. Here's what I hope happens: I hope that Harper has a chance to govern well and demonstrate he's not the scary monster the left-wingers would have us believe, and then win a majority government the next time. I'm very nervous about a decade or more of minority governments.

Failing that, even if the Liberals come back into power in the next election (after this one) at least the party will have been spanked for what was, you have to admit, outright criminal activity. As the old adage goes, all political parties are ultimately corrupt, but at least in democracy we have the chance to throw the bums out every four years or so.

I'll add a few more comments tomorrow once the election results are known.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just a quick note as I prepare to head off for two weeks holiday. I'll be away with my family in the so-called Riviera Maya resort area on Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. Our plans include snorkeling in the various cenotes (fresh water lagoons), visits to the Mayan ruins in Tulum and Chichen Itza, and a scuba dive excursion off the coast of Cozumel (home to a thousand-mile reef, the longest continuous reef in the world, second only in overall size to the Great Barrier Reef off Australia's coast).

I'll be back with lots to report around Monday, January 23rd. And yes, I will make some notes about waste management and recycling in Mexico to share with you all!

And away we go. Yeehaa!

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 6:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A news item that I posted recently under Headline News states that Stewardship Ontario forwarded cheques totaling $12.8 million at the end of December to municipalities to share the cost of implementing and operating Ontario's municipal blue box recycling system.

Turns out, the December payment is the third this year, bringing the total for the 2005 program year to $51 million. The grand total since the funding program started three years ago is $81 million.

You can read the news item to learn the details, and you can get the specific breakdown of how much each municipality received via the websites mentioned at the end of the news item. (For your conveniece, I've pasted the news item at the end of this entry.) However, the news item provoked a philosphical thought in me.

Some critics (including me at times) charge that the blue box funding scheme is something of a sell out, with certain industries off the hook, perverse consequences in which the good guys get punished for recycling more (think "paper"), and (worst of all) industry paying only 50 per cent of net recycling costs (whereas in real producer responsibility they should pay all the costs, some say). Yet I have to admit (for once!) that when you step back and think about it, from a macro perspective, this is really incredible news.

I mean, this just isn't happening in the United States, or in most Canadian jurisdictions (yet). Let's set aside the complex issues of EPR and product stewardship schemes for used oil, batteries, paint, tires, etc. for a moment. It's a Really Big Thing that in Ontario, municipalities are now splitting millions of dollars worth of cheques written by industry to offset the cost of recycling such things as used beverage containers, old newspapers, plastic peanut butter jars, and so on.

I know that I, for one, get so entangled in the minutae of recycling and funding issues that I sometimes lose sight of the bigger issue. What I'm getting at is this: A few decades ago, when someone bought a product and/or its packaging or container, that was the end of the matter. The material was thought to belong to the consumer, and they could either use it and keep it in their house, or discard it in the trash. The green garbage bags or metal container were emptied into the rear packer, and when the truck turned the corner, it was "out of sight, out of mind." The cost of waste collection and disposal was paid for via municipal property taxes, and the garbage went to a landfill or incinerator. End of story. Okay, a high percentage of soft drink containers were once collected on deposit and even (gads!) refilled in a privately owned and operated bottling system that was arguably better from an environmental economics point of view. But again, let's willfully ignore that for now.

Now look at what's happening. Over time we have shifted, as a society, to a totally new paradigm about waste. We now consider only a minor fraction of discards to be true "garbage." We now think of anything that's recyclable or compostable as a kind of renewable resource, and we feel obligated to capture it and renew it via a recycling/composting infrastructure. We are willing to pay more for this, if necessary. But the most amazing thing is this development in blue box funding wherein we now believe that it's the producer or brand owner's responsibility to pay for the recycling. That it's "their waste" and not just ours, the consumers'. Isn't that incredible?

People are beginning to clue in, too, that our waste generation keeps rising, on both an aggreate and per capita basis, despite all our recycling. Higher energy costs, the requirement to divert waste from landfill, and (eventually) direct billing for disposal services are going to act in concert to take things to the next level, which will include genuine packaging and waste reduction, not just recycling.

Now let me make a prediction. (This is the New Year, after all.)

I predict that within ten years this paradigm will expand to include all "waste." By 2015, I believe we'll see the following. (And even though these concepts won't be fully realized for ten years, we're discussing them and making decisions right now -- I predict 2006 will be a watershed year in that regard.):

1) Brand owners and first importers (let's just call them "producers") will pay 100 per cent (not just 50 per cent) of the net costs of recycling materials collected in the blue box (e.g., ferrous and non-ferrous metals, fibre, glass, plastic containers, etc.).

2) Producers will also pay 100 per cent of the net cost of any fraction of their materials that end up in landfill. In other words, they will fund the "bad" disposal as well as the "good" recycling/composting.

3) More producers will fund the net cost of more materials, to the point where essentially 100 per cent of what is managed in the waste stream, whatever its fate, will be funded one way or another by the producer. This will even be extended to organics. Grocers like Loblaws etc. will write cheques to help out with the cost of composting their green wastes. Since the consumer ultimately pays the tab, this will inspire change at the point of purchase and in the wholesale/manufacturing stages (which is really the whole point of producer responsibility programs).

4) Anything that can be managed in a return-to-depot deposit-refund system will be. Wine and liquor bottles will be handled in a system similar to that of the Brewers of Canada as illustrated by The Beer Store in Ontario. Watch for the emergence of new niche players in the soft drink business who will use the smart economics of local bottle refilliing systems (refillable PET, etc.) to cut into Coke and Pepsi's business based on one-time-use "recyclable" containers. The niche players will succeed because eventually government policies in each province will make them more competitive, i.e., by imposing recycling levies to the extent that the current model (in which vast quantities of soft drinks are canned and bottled in large regional hubs) is not as appealing as local take-back systems. The soft drink companies will lobby against this like heck, but over time they'll lose, especially because of the ongoing higher cost of energy and petroleum.

5) All of this will generate real reductions in packaging and waste volumes, because the producers will pay and the consumers will have a more direct economic signal about the cost of their wicked ways, in part because by 2015 all municipalities will directly bill for waste services, and the costs will no longer be buried in confusing property tax receipts. There will be more private contractors, but whether the service is delivered privately or publicly, new technology (and the requirement that households sort their garbage into different containers) will allow the service supplier to directly charge householders by the ounce for each material collected, with the net cost varying in real time according to shifting spot market prices for such things as aluminum, steel, glass, plastic, garden-quality compost, and so on. Entrepreneurs will gain a competitive advantage by offering customers specialized or more efficient services to take away their spent fluorescent bulbs, batteries, or other discards, either more cheaply than the municipal service provider, or actually paying for the materials because of a profitable market for the specific product. (I think this will be especially true of used computers and other "e-waste.")

6) The new market will evolve a sea change in who are the big players. Large waste companies that currently see themselves as being in the "landfill" business, where profit margins are high and where recycling is sometimes a token activity, will become smaller players, except for those that seize the opportunity and become experts in product stewardship. Large companies often miss these kinds of changes, the most famous example being IBM's blue suited executives and their failure to realize the importance of the personal computer, which allowed some hippy-ish young men with long hair, bears and jeans to become tycoons via Microsoft and Apple computers (among others). It may be that Bill Gates and his Microserfs are about to lose out in the next evolution, which is Internet-based instead of hardware driven, and in which people pay for software by subscription, on an as-needed basis, accessed on remote servers via their small "information appliance." Similarly, by 2015, the waste management companies will no longer look like those of today. It will be less and less an industry of garbage trucks and landfill operators, and more and more a system involving agents and brokers coordinating a network of consumer and commercial markets with return-to-retail, return-to-depot, and direct pick up services. Their guild-like partners will be comprised of companies like HP, Dell, Safety-Kleen, Toyota, Google, eBay and companies that haven't been formed yet. The various consortia will be linked in a high-tech wireless communications system and will include oil re-refiners, pulp and paper mills, electronics equipment manufacturers, bottle refillers, and "soil farmers" turning organic waste into garden compost and rich loam to rehabilitate desertification-affected areas in other countries. I imagine a network of small vans and UPS-type trucks picking up discards and delivering materials to recyclng plants, farms, airport or truck hubs, in place of rear packers and front-end loaders going to transfer stations and landfills. Whatever landfills are around will be high-tech operations, generating power from methane and mining the incoming material for valuable materials left over from front-end programs. Many of these may move to offshore locations in places like China and India that will receive container loads of that small fraction of urban waste not diverted by the North American system.

7) There will be, for a period of time, a sharp divergence between Canada and the United States in this area as Canada moves more rapidly toward a European-style system with lots of product stewardship and EPR programs. Companies that do business on both sides of the border, and act as though Canada and the USA are just one big market, could get into trouble. Niche players will grow rapidly by recognizing the distinct Canadian opportunity, and will then grow into the United States as it too, eventually, embraces the product stewardship model.

Much of what I've written above sounds fanciful today. Some of it may not play out as I have written, or the time frame may be different. But if you're a doubter, think about this: Companies are now writing millions of dollars worth of cheques to muncipalities to underwrite the net costs of curbside recycling. Many product stewardship policies and schemes are coming on stream. Within only a couple of years, Canada's most populated provinces will be expected to divert more than 60 per cent of their waste from landfill. Would a householder have imagined or believed this in, say, 1965? I doubt it. Back then, garbage issues were about keeping racoons out of the tin trash can, or headlines about the mob controlling "stops" on private hauling routes.

It's incredible where we were, where we are now, and where we're headed. I expect my own career as a journalist in this niche will last about the timeframe I've just described. When I retire (or, more likely, just decide I can afford to move on to pursue other interests) in or around 2015, it'll be interesting to reflect back on this blog posting, and see whether I was right or wrong.

Now here's the news item that got me started down this path:

Ontario blue box funding update

Stewardship Ontario will be forwarding cheques totaling $12.8 million at the end of December to municipalities to share the cost of implementing and operating Ontario's municipal Blue Box recycling system.

"The December payment is the third this year. The fourth and final $12.8 million payment for the 2005 program year will be sent to municipalities at the end of March, 2006, bringing the total payment for 2005 to $51 million, and the grand total since the funding program started three years ago to $81 million," announced Damian Bassett, CEO of Stewardship Ontario.

Obligated companies, called "stewards," are those which introduce packaging and printed materials into the Ontario market that are managed through the municipal waste management system. These companies are required under the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 to report the amount of packaging and printed paper they put into the Ontario residential marketplace and to pay fees set by Stewardship Ontario.

"In 2005, more than 1,800 companies were identified as stewards," Bassett added. "Each year the number of stewards grows as additional obligated companies are identified."

Stewardship Ontario is the industry funding organization that collects the fees from obligated companies and distributes the funds to municipalities.

"The success that Stewardship Ontario has had in meeting its financial obligations to municipalities clearly demonstrates that the Blue Box Program Plan, the first program plan approved by Waste Diversion Ontario, is working," said Glenda Gies, Executive Director of Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO).

The calculation of the funding allocated to each municipality is undertaken by WDO, based on information municipalities provide through an annual waste management datacall. Funding is based on:

1) quantity of each type of packaging and printed material marketed by each municipality

2) population density of each municipality, and

3) size of operation of each program.

The funding allocated to each municipality is published on the WDO website at www.wdo.ca

In addition to the direct cash payments, a further $5.7 million is available to municipalities this year (for a total of $9 million over the first two years) through the Effectiveness and Efficiency (E&E) Fund. Each year, 10 per cent of the stewards' fees are placed in the E&E Fund to provide competitive grants to municipalities to increase the effectiveness and minimize the cost of municipal recycling programs. So far, a total of 34 projects valued at $5.1 million in support have been awarded. Information about the E&E Fund is available at www.stewardshipontario.ca.

A list of quarterly amounts paid to each municipality is also available.

For background on Waste Diversion Ontario, visit www.wdo.ca and for Stewardship Ontario, visit www.stewardshipontario.ca

Contacts:

Barbara McConnell
Communications
Stewardship Ontario
647-777-3362
After hours: 613-471-1816

Glenda Gies
Executive Director
Waste Diversion Ontario
416-226-5113

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 7:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)