A phrase you hear a lot these days in relation to climate change discussions is "tipping point." The thinking is that nature absorbs a great deal of emissions for a long time and shows little evidence of change, but when the emissions build up to a certain point and the change comes, the change is dramatic and potentially irreversible. A good example is peat bogs. It's estimated that 40 per cent of the CO2 emitted annually comes from subterranean fires in peat bogs -- you know the kind, that burn for years. If the climate warms even a bit, frozen peat bogs warm and sometimes catch fire, and this releases more CO2 which in turn spurs on the greater warming. It's a positive feedback loop that doesn't stop once it's set in motion, at least not until a new warmer climate balances itself.

There are many tipping points in nature. The east coast of Canada learned about one the hard way with its fisheries. For decades we fished and fished and fished the cod, which seemed inexhaustible. While government scientists tried to figure out just how many cod could be taken sustainably, the tipping point was crossed and the fishery collapsed, never to return. Perhaps a bit of warming played a role, perhaps other factors too complicated for us to ever fully understand. But the lesson learned is that humans can only "manage" nature to a limited degree. We need to allow a significant margin of error, to tread lightly (in other words) with ecosystems that are always more complicated than our models.

All of this is a long-winded runup to an observation I've made recently, which is that the mainstream media also seems to have its tipping points. I'm a daily reader of the national newspapers and other media, and I detect important trends from time to time. I've noticed in recent months (weeks, even) a great deal of detailed coverage of climate change issues, including in-depth documentaries from the news staff at CNN, and a major cover story in Time magazine. But also reams of other coverage in all sorts of media. Has the media crossed a "tipping point"? I think so.

And it's going to affect politics, too. Just today I posted a Headline News item about ten U.S. states suing U.S. EPA (led by Elliott Spitzer) over its refusal to regulate CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. This is a major development and holds important implications for the future, since so much of the U.S. CO2 emissions come from this source. As you know, the power plants tout their "clean coal technology" which spews less particulate matter (aerosols) into the atmosphere, but nevertheless releases CO2. Ironically, since the aerosols (though harmful to human health) have a "dimming" effect, the cleaner plants could actually hasten global warming! This lawsuit is one to watch.

And just this morning I noticed news coverage of politicians in Washington and elsewhere who were making public statements about the high current price of gasoline, and who were embarrassed by reporters when they were asked how they got to the press conference. It turned out that in most cases the politicians not only drove cars, but either drove or were chauffeured around in gas guzzling SUVs (of the kind that get 16 miles per gallon). One news segment showed parking lot after parking lot, streeet after street, in Washington lined with the cars of politicians and their staff, and it seemed every other car was a large SUV.

The point about this is that media is now putting the policymakers (and their personal hypocrisy) in the spotlight. I think they're doing this not so much because of global warming but because of high gas prices. But it's interesting that sustained high fuel costs are hitting consumers just as more convincing evidence is hitting the airwaves (literally!) that global warming is real. This combination is generating a media "tipping point" and I think it's unlikely we'll ever go back to our old way of thinking, even if fuel prices come down temporarily. Most people now "get it" that fewer and fewer truly large oil and gas fields are being discovered. The world inventory is shrinking and costs are rising, just at the time when we're discovering that emissions from burning fossil fuels (especially coal for heating and cooling and electricity, and gasoline for transportation) may be ruining the planet.

One last thought. I can't be the only person wondering why we're building more and more sealed glass and steel hi-rise condominium buildings and office towers, as well as low-density suburbs with what I call McMansion oversize homes. As the energy crisis deepens and global warming awareness grows, I imagine these will be the slums of the future, especially the latter model. (I suppose sealed hi-rises can be retrofitted with thermally better performing windows and surfaces, and windows that can be opened in the summer.) It's just a shame that we're not incorporating more features today into our buildings in anticipation of what's going to come at us in the next few decades.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 7:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I could write a long blog entry on this, and I'll probably track back later and write some installments on certain aspects of this book, but let me just state this here and now: Do yourself a favor and go on Amazon and order The Revenge of Gaia by British scientist James Lovelock (Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Book).

The book has just come out and represents the most up-to-date insights and "life reflections" of one of the late 20th century's greatest ecological thinkers. The book clarifies some of Lovelock's earlier big ideas, and incorporates his interpretation of the most recent cliamte change insights and data. I consider this book much better than Tim Flannery's recent book The Weather Makers.

A couple of quick thoughts about why you should read this book. First off, this is a very VERY good book about the "science" of climate change, especially as it relates to whole earth systems. It's a really useful and engaging "primer" that quickly brings you up to speed on the "things you must know" about the carbon cycle and such matters as how the weathering of rock takes carbon out of the atmosphere, and how the gases produced by sea algae seed the formation of clouds. (These algae will be decimated -- in the proper sense of the term -- if the upper layer of the oceans heat up, and/or become more acidic from increased carbonization. this will lead to less cloud formation, which will allow more sunlight to penetrate to the earth and lead to further heating, and so the positive feedback escalates...)

Second, I enjoyed the sections of the book in which Lovelock, who has lived in the countryside and really understands nature from direct observation, condemns the -- shall we say, "nonrigorous" -- point of view of many "urban" elitist environmentalists. Lovelock tells quite a few fascinating stories about how the city-dwelling environmentalists have "romantic" ideas about the countryside, which have led them to support foolish ideas that "sound good" but in reality cause environmental harm.

Third, Lovelock makes what I consider to be the best-reasoned, lucid and convincing argument in favor of why (brace yourself!) we need to build nuclear power plants as an intermediate step in preserving our power-reliant civilization while we transition to a more sustainable way of life, and develop the potential of fusion and other technologies that are in their infancy. Taking the reader through a scientific and logical set of arguments, Lovelock pleads that it will take at least 30 or 40 years for the technologies we need to reach their potential and begin widespread adoption. But we don't have that much time to drastically curtail our CO2 emissions.

Lovelock is extremely disdainful of the notion that solar or wind power, and such "renewables" as ethanol produced from corn, can make much of a serious dent in making up the power deficit. This is not at all a matter of ideology for Lovelock -- he'd love it if any of these could really make up the difference. But again he brings the cool logic of a scientific mind (a genuis level one, I think) to bear on the issue and demolishes -- and I mean demolishes -- the arguments and claims that these alternative energy sources will get us out of our current pickle. Don't take my word for it -- buy the book and read it, and I promise you that you'll never be suckered in again by the rhetoric of the urban environmentalists in regard to that nonsense.

I predict that quite a few environmentalists will ignore or dismiss Lovelock's book because his free-thinking ideas threaten some of their most cherished concepts. I suspect they'll dismiss him as much as will some of the corporate interests out there. It'll be interesting to see.

As a postscript, let me just add that I found this book so powerful as to be almost life-changing. I'm a bit shell-shocked, frankly, and have been moping about for quite a few days absorbing its implications, not able to be quite as productive as normal. It's sort of the intellectual equivalent of post-traumatic stress disorder. Right now my world view is upside down compared to what it was before I read the book. And I'm a very skeptical, even cynical, person. So I suggest you read the book on your summer holiday, at the cottage or whatnot, because you really don't want to read this book on the weekend and then have to face work on Monday morning as I did. (The book isn't depressing, by the way. I'm referring to the power of the ideas, some of which knocked me for a loop.)

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It was unfortunate that I wasn't able to attend the AGM of Waste Diversion Ontario, as Ontario's Environment Minister Laurel Broten made some important announcements. Thanksfully, representatives from the Ontario Waste Management Association were on hand, and forwarded notes to their members (including me) about a change in direction that the minister announced in regard to certain materials for which Waste Diversion Ontario was supposed to develop programs and policy recommendations.

The first and most important is that there will be no "western model" used-oil program in Ontario. This represents a significant achievement for Safety-Kleen and Newalta -- the two large used-oil collection and re-refining companies that argued (successfully, it now appears) that their wholly private-sector driven systems are handling used oil as successfully, and perhaps more so, as provinces that have introduced producer responsibility programs for used oil based on collectives and stewardship boards. The area that's less successful (filters and containers) will be handled in a household hazardous waste program, the details of which are forthcoming but not yet known.

I won't gloat, but I have to say that I believe (or at least hope) that our magazine played some role in this important policy reversal, as it was in the pages of Solid Waste & Recycling magazine that articles first appeared that questioned the suitability of the Alberta-style used-oil programs for Ontario. I have written on this topic, but it was really Usman Valiante, a contributing editor and also a consultant whose clients include Safety-Kleen, who led the charge. He adapted some of his writings for an article on that topic that appeared on the op-ed page of the Financial Post, that surely also influenced the policymakers. It's amazing to think what a difference only a small number of people can make in preventing what would otherwise have been a "slam dunk" for the purveyors of and environmentally and economically regressive scheme.

Similar reasoning (that the private sector is on the job) was put forward in opposing a proposed scrap tire program for Ontario. Again, as with used oil, the people putting forward the draft policy were the brand owners of the "virgin product" without adequate representation from, and consultation with, the association of scrap-tire handlers who already collect these materials in a private sector-led scheme in Ontario. (And again, I must note, that Usman Valiante played a leading role in helping the scrap-tire handlers formulate their position and voice their concerns.) The proposed program has been shelved for the time being so that the ministry and the WDO can focus on more urgent priorities. Does this mean the scrap tire system in Ontario is flawless, and couldn't benefit from some kind of legislation or program? Certainly not. But, as with used oil, Ontario policymakers have recognized that in certain cases a product stewardship program administered by a collective with a visibile fee, etc. can create anti-competitive and even environmentally regressive situations. Government policy should recognize and augment existing systems operated by the private sector, and not impose a central-planning model. It's indeed impressive that Ontario's environment ministry has finally "got the message" on this.

The minister has announced that there will be an HHW program in Ontario, one in which municipalities will receive the materials in their depots, since they already have this infrastructure. I can see this being part of a successful program, but I'm worried that this might signal that HHW will be handled by the public sector. Hopefully the minister means to integrate the municipal infrastructure with a producer responsibility program in which consumers and companies will pay for the recycling, diversion and safe disposal of HHW. Time will tell.

One last thought. While I'm thrilled that Ontario's environment minister has understood the flaws in the former used oil and scrap tire proposals, I have started to wonder about the value of the WDO. I mean, the minister makes the decisions in the end anyway, and the WDO had recommended policies she has now rejected. Why not just determine all this right in the ministry? What value is the WDO adding? It seems the main area of success relates to the blue box materials, for which Stewardship Ontario (the industry funding organization or "IFO") already calls the shots. Stewardship Ontario could be maintained as the blue box IFO, and WDO could simply be closed. The ministry could ask the municipalities and an IFO that respresents the HHW brand owners to hammer out a system. I hate to say this, because I respect Glenda Gies (the WDO's executive director), but I just don't see the need for the WDO anymore.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 4:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Goody goody! When I came home last night I found my Amazon shipment had arrived -- The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock (Penguin Books). This will constitute my bedside reading for the next few nights. It's not a long book (177 pages, including glossary and index), but is said to update and encapsulate the influential and slightly eccentric 86-year-old scientist's thinking about the state of the planet and mankind's difficult relationship with it.

The book has just been released and I in fact pre-ordered it ahead of its publication date, so I'm happy to be an early reader, although advance copies were made available to book reviewers and it has been reviewed in the mainstream press. I will share my thoughts in this space as soon as I've finished it. As an aside, you should be wary of dismissive comments that are sometimes made about Lovelock, based on a misreading of his hypothesis that the Earth is a living organism. Lovelock does not think of the Earth in quack religion terms, and he's under no illusions that the planet is "alive" in the usual sense. Instead, he uses analogies from nature, including how living organisms function, in order to create a model -- a way of thinking, really -- of the Earth so that we can better appreciate the planet's self-regulating mechanisms. The Earth shed heat and functions in many complex ways that maintain a natural balance that is ideal for the organisms that live upon and within it, in a symbiotic relationship. (A good example is the way that plants inhale gases that are useless or even poisonous to animals, and exhale gases that animals depend upon. Over time, life has altered the chemical makeup of the atmosphere to suit life's purposes.) Lovelock believes that humans are currently interfering with the Earth's natural systems in such a way that we're harming the vital components of our Spaceship Earth. Worse, many well-intentioned but ideologically-narrow environmentalists are pushing solutions that are unrealistic, and avoiding such things as nuclear power, which could give modern society the energy it needs to maintain and expand prosperity, which minimizing our ecological footprint.

Sometimes, critics who prefer "hard science" (or who have anti-environmental agendas) dismiss Lovelock's metaphors and models, which is a pity because they are wonderful teaching tools. Once again, it's a situation wherein you must read the author's work and make up your own mind.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario is offering the Three Bandits brand of wine in Tetra Paks, and has tied this into a frog-saving campaign. (See news item in Headline News.) I have a real problem with this.

Don't get me wrong -- I like the idea of money from the sale of every unit of a given product being donated to a worthy cause, and I'm sure the three frog species sorely need protecting.

What bothers me is the way the frog campaign is used to greenwash the introduction into the market of an expanded amount of wines sold in Tetra Pak-style asceptic containers.

And, for a second time, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Tetra Paks, per se. I know the long list of benefits they offer. There's the ease of use, the light weight, the "stackability" and so on. But for me, the main benefit from an environmental point of view relates to energy. Asceptics allow producers to transport and store milk and juice-type beverages at room temperature that would normally have to be refrigerated. This is precisely the benfit that wine does NOT require.

Asceptics are recyclable, but it's very expensive to recycle them and not many municipalities collect them for recycling. If Tetra Pak or the LCBO were willing to somehow underwrite the cost of collecting and recycling ALL the Tetra Pak containers -- in other words, if the practiced true producer responsibility -- that objection would be negated. But for now, shifting more and more wine into a container type that experiences low (and costly) recylcing rates appears to be extremely environmentally regressive.

I think THAT is the real reason why the LCBO is associating the new wine packaging with feel-good environmental campaigns -- to make consumers feel they're "doing the right thing" for the environment, and to discourage criticsim from activist groups. I also object to the simplistic claims that Tetra Paks, for wine, are environmentally superior to glass, mostly because glass is heavy. Glass can be recycled endlessly in bottle-to-bottle applications. Tetra Paks? Well, you have to put the packages in hot water to separate the different layers. You can recycle the paper pulp, and you can recycle the aluminum, but if you think through the environmental lifecycle of harvesting the trees, plus the fact that you don't turn all the pulp back into paper, and the environmental burden of aluminum production, well, I just don't see that it's obvious at all that this is environmentally superior. In fact, my suspicion is the opposite.

I think the burden of proof lies with the LCBO and Tetra Pak to provide a credible third-party environmental lifecycle study comparing Tetra Paks boxes used for wine with glass wine bottles, including raw materials extraction, energy inputs and recycling, before making unsubstantiated claims that this packaging is environmentally superior. In the absence of such a study, the claims are simply rhetoric, and potentially misleading rhetoric at that.

And I wish the mainstream media would draw attention to these matters and not just repeat the LCBO and Tetra Pak claims like some marketing arm of both organizations. Whatever happened to critical thought in journalism?

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Readers will find the complete text below of Peel Region's recommendation regarding the blue box (including the problem of 15 litre PET water bottles and various funding issues).

It seems the blue box still has some serious issues to sort out, and the municipalities are tired of getting 50 cent dollars to handle strange new packages, and all the material that they have to dispose of that never makes it into the blue box in the first place.

Here's the resolution:

RECOMMENDATION WM-7-2006:

Whereas the introduction of 15 litre polyethylene terephthalate (PET) water bottles to the municipal recycling system will add costs to the municipal tax base;

And whereas the 15 litre PET water bottles will increase recyclable material processing costs and reduce recycling storage capacity for residents;

And whereas a move away from the current deposit-return system that re-uses containers, to recycling of these bottles is a step down the 3 R's hierarchy;

And whereas the current Blue Box Program Plan creates a disincentive for the packaging industry to increase the use of recyclable packaging:

Therefore be it resolved that the Ontario Minister of the Environment be requested to regulate the management of 15 litre PET water bottles by:

a) mandating a deposit-return system where consumers and the packaging industry bear the costs to manage the empty bottles, or

b) requiring the packaging industry to pay 100 per cent of the cost of managing the empty bottles in municipal waste and recycling systems;

And further, that the Minister of the Environment be requested to direct Stewardship Ontario, through Waste Diversion Ontario, to amend the Blue Box Program Plan to require the consumer packaging and printed paper industries to pay 50 per cent of the cost for municipalities to manage blue box waste materials in both the recycling and waste streams;

And further, that the Minister of the Environment be requested to require companies that wish to introduce new consumer packaging into the Ontario marketplace to consult with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) to determine the impact of the packaging on municipal waste management systems;

And further, that this resolution be forwarded to AMO and other Ontario municipalities for their consideration.

Approved 2006-220

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 1:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm back from a busy week in B.C. at SWANA's combined Canadian and Northwest Chapter Symposium. (You can read about that in the forthcoming April/May edition of the magazine.)

Today I noticed an article from BusinessWeek Online about hybrid cars. (For convenience, I've pasted it below.) It turns out that many models are not nearly as environmentally friendly as folks have been led to believe. Often it appears the cars get just a couple more kilometres per gallon of gas than a similar car model produced as a regular vehicle.

It appears that many people are buying them because the electric part of the engine (which utilizes waste energy from the braking system) develops tremendous torque and hence fast acceleration. So yuppies can have a fast-accelerating high-performance car, and "feel good" about the environment, yet the environmental benefit is almost non-existent.

I've also read that the performance of even the better models (GM is supposedly the worst, Toyota the best) sounds a lot better in U.S. EPA reports (under lab conditions) than in "real world" driving tests performed by Car & Driver and other auto magazines. Way worse!

In theory, hybrids could really have a positive environmental impact, but so far they don't justify the very large extra money required up front to buy one. As an aside, I have a friend from Ireland who says diesel is the way to go. Cars like his Volkswagon diesel -- which gets an amazing 1000 kilometres on a single tank -- are ubiquitous in Europe. And they burn clean -- not like the smoke-belching trucks that come to mind when you think of diesel. With fuel efficiency like that, maybe we should be switching to diesel before these other gimmicks. Anyone for a hybrid diesel car?

Now here's the article.

Hybrid Talk: Big Auto Bandies the H Word

Hybrids used to be the environmentalists' great shining hope for combating auto pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and gas guzzling. Those were the romance days for hybrids, the first two or three years following their introduction in 2000. But the honeymoon is over. With the emergence of performance-oriented hybrids and ultra-mild hybrid systems, environmentalists now see the technology as one more example of how Big Auto has hoodwinked consumers into believing their products are as green as they can possibly get.

But it may be too late for the auto makers to put the hybrid cat back in the bag. Everybody has seen what the best of hybrid technology can do, shattering Detroit's myth that it lacks the know-how to greatly extend average fuel economy. "Hybrids are the poster child for the fuel economy debate," says Jason Mark, director of the Clean Vehicles Program for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, like the Sierra Club, BlueWater Network, the Rainforest Action Network/Global Exchange, and others, share the view that the latest hybrids are being used as greenwash, but they appear divided on which car company is the worst culprit. The UCS, for example, sees General Motors (NYSE:GM - News) as enemy No. 1. They have applied the term "hollow hybrid" to GM's current hybrid offerings.

"Bad Boys." "We think that hybrid technology ought to be reserved for the environmental and consumer benefits [it] can deliver," says UCS's Jason Mark. "Every quasi-hybrid under the sun is being labeled as a hybrid for public relations benefits." Mark thinks that hybrid technology should be put to better uses than turning a 16-mpg vehicle into an 18-mpg vehicle. "The point is not to turn extreme gas-guzzlers into moderate gas guzzlers."

What perturbs Mark and others is not only the mislabeling or misuse of hybrid technology on the part of certain auto makers, but that those same auto makers are lobbying and litigating to block any public policy that will hold them accountable for the detrimental environmental and social effects of their products. Mark calls GM "the bad boys of public policy for fuel economy, emissions, and greenhouse gases. In all public forums, they are the most aggressive in fighting environmental regulations. If you ask anybody to rank the auto makers on their policy performance, GM would be on the bottom."

The folks at Jumpstart Ford, a project of Global Exchange and the Rainforest Action Network, might disagree. Their disapproval and public protests are aimed at the Ford Motor Co (NYSE:F - News). Jennifer Krill, zero emissions campaign director for the Rainforest Action Network, thinks that Ford deserves credit for producing the Ford Escape Hybrid. But, she said, the same year that Ford released the Escape Hybrid, they "had the worst overall fuel-efficiency record. One hybrid doesn't let them off the hook for being the most wasteful auto maker."

Nobody'S Perfect. Don't think that Prius-producing Toyota has escaped the attention of the environmentalists. Last fall, when Toyota (TM) launched its "Hybrid Synergy Drive" ad campaign, BlueWater Network launched its own campaign, entitled "Toyota: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing." The full-page ads in The New York Times and other publications showed CEO Katsuaki Watanabe in the foreground and a man wearing a wolf's head in the background.

"What people don't know, and what we wanted to tell them, is that Toyota is not as green as it makes itself out to be," says Danielle Fugere, director of climate change at BlueWater. "Yes, it has some good green technology, like the Prius. But Toyota has consistently lobbied against every attempt to increase vehicle fuel economy. It's part of a group of auto makers suing against California's greenhouse gas law."

While the various environmental groups have each chosen a different company to target for their public education campaigns, they stand unified in their criticism of the auto makers who have sued California to block the enactment of AB1493, the greenhouse gas capping law known as the Pavley Law. The regulation, which could affect as much as 30% of the U.S. market (not just California), would be phased in from 2009 to 2016. It would require the auto industry to cut greenhouse gas emissions from its new fleets by approximately 30%.

Major Lawsuit. The response from auto makers is that greenhouse gas restrictions are a surrogate for fuel economy, because increasing fuel efficiency is the only effective way to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Therefore, they claim, California is trying to regulate fuel economy standards, which only can be established at the federal level. Otherwise, they argue, manufacturers would have to produce vehicles based on two or more different emissions standards. [In fact, tailpipe emissions are already set at the state level.]

BlueWaterNetwork, Rainforest Action Network, Global Exchange, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and the National Resources Defense Council have all joined the lawsuit to defend the Pavley Law against the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Alliance of International Automobile Manufacturers, which includes all of the major carmakers, including those who sell hybrids.

The state of California and the environmental groups say that greenhouse gas emissions are not strictly related to fuel economy. "The auto makers can comply by using alternative-fuel vehicles," says Blue Water's Fugere. "In some cases, an alternative-fuel vehicle will get less fuel economy. California doesn't care if fuel economy goes up or goes down. We want to know how much CO2 is coming up from the tailpipe."

Green Challenge. The legal contest, scheduled for 2007, is shaping up into the biggest battle over automobile emissions and efficiency since CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] was enacted 30 years ago. And it highlights the fact that producing a hybrid -- however you define it -- no longer makes a car company a green company. "I would like to have a name like 'hybrid' denote this is a great, fuel-efficient vehicle," says Fugere. "Point of fact, the auto manufacturers are using the hybrid terminology to fool people."

Now the only way for a car company to be considered environmentally friendly is to remove its name from the lawsuit blocking the Pavley Law. Toyota? Honda? Ford? Anybody?

Business Week

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week I will be in Vancouver attending SWANA's 21st Annual Pacific Northwest Regional Solid Waste Symposium.

This is being combined with the Canadian Solid Waste Symposium to provide two full days of trade show and technical sessions with the theme "Innovation and Stewardship -- Leading the Way."

I will post some blog entries this week from the conference if I am able (likely). The event should be a great opportunity for me to find interesting new articles for upcoming magazine editions. I am also speaking at the Thursday morning breakfast (8:00 -- 9:00 a.m.) on the topic of the results of our annual industry survey.

FYI, the Symposium will be held at the Best Western Richmond Hotel & Convention Centre in Richmond, BC, Canada, and includes an extra day of technical tours with a opportunity to wind down in Whistler, plus certification training for MOLO (Landfill) or Manager Transfer Station Systems.

As an aside, our Publisher Brad O'Brien will be at Waste Expo in Las Vegas this week. Unfortunately the two important events are being held on the same dates, so we divvyed it up this way. So look for Brad and drop by our booth at that event, if you're there. I hope to be at next year's Waste Expo. If you're at the SWANA event in Vancouver, say hello to me there, too.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)