Anyone with children knows how quickly a new toy can collect dust. For this reason, we continually make room for new toys in our children’s closets and, as a result, the pile of soon-to-be discarded toys constantly grows larger. With toy sales accounting for more than $20 billion each year, this represents a significant amount of potential waste.

While donation is always a great option for unwanted toys, sometimes a toy is loved too much to be in like-new condition for other children’s use. While your first inclination would be to throw old toys in the garbage, there are other ways to beneficially reuse your old toys. In particular, electronic toys like Wiis and motorized cars contain parts – such as glass, plastic and metals – that can be recycled and reused in the creation of new products. Like other electronic waste, these toys may need to be carefully managed during the recycling process.

As more people become educated about the proper disposal of e-waste, such as electronic toys like Xboxes and remote-controlled cars, manufacturers and waste industry experts have teamed up to assist with the recycling process. Recently, the Canadian Toy Association and Waste Management joined forces to provide British Columbia’s first electronic toy recycling event. During the event, the two groups collected electronic toys that were broken or could no longer be used for recycling. This video provides further explanation about the event.

The Vancouver-area event emerged as part of the Canadian Toy Association’s (CTA) work to develop a new type of electronics recycling program to meet B.C.’s Recycling Regulation. CTA’s new program, which is under development, will provide B.C. consumers with a convenient and environmentally responsible way to recycle used, unwanted, obsolete or damaged electronic toys. The materials collected during the recent recycling day will be analyzed by different product categories and broken down by material, product age, and manufacturer, if known. By sifting through these toys, the CTA can determine the best ways safely recycle and divert these materials from disposal.

While this was only hosted as a trial event, it was an encouraging step toward instituting similar types of programs across North America to teach consumers the value and convenience of diversion programs.

As toy manufacturers, waste industry experts and government officials continue to work together to create these types of recycling programs, consumers will be afforded many more opportunities for safe, simple and environmentally conscious disposal of their unwanted items.

Posted by Wes Muir at 10:07 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have been away for a couple of weeks and left my computer at home, imagine! Spent ten days with a friend in the mountains of BC, including a visit to Vancouver and up to Whistler. Fantastic weather for the entire time; we really do live in the most beautiful country in the world!

Back in Ontario for the revolution. I have commented a few times in the last couple of months on Toronto’s municipal election and Rob Ford’s campaign. Ford, the two term councillor preaching austerity, was running against George Smitherman, the former Liberal cabinet minister, and others.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, was lined up against Ford. The main stream media, including the Toronto Star, were literally on Smitherman’s campaign team. All of the other candidates for Mayor, with the exception of NDP’er Joe Pantalone, saw the writing on the wall and switched to support Smitherman in a blatant, “Anybody but Ford” movement.

Well it wasn’t anybody but Ford, it was everybody for Ford. He destroyed Smitherman at the polls winning by an astounding 90,000 votes. Pantalone was a distant third. When the dust settles I will comment about what this means for business, the waste industry and an overall shift in voter expectations going forward.

While I am not one to promote myself, I am pleased that the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) has invited me to be the keynote speaker at their dinner on Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010 as part of the CANADIAN WASTE SECTOR SYMPOSIUM in Toronto. Being billed as speaking about my book TRASHED is nice, however, I am looking forward to talking more about the LESSONS LEARNED during my fourteen years working with politicians, environmentalists and the media. Should be fun! I understand that tickets have sold well and can be purchased by contacting Michele Goulding at the OWMA office, 905-791-9500.

Later in the week, as part of the Exposition and Trade Show , the Compost Council of Canada has invited me to speak at their luncheon on November 4th, 2010. Again, I am proud to be part of their 20th anniversary and will take a different approach looking at the CHALLENGES we all face in implementing environmental initiatives whether they be landfills, wind farms or compost facilities.

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 10:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I’m a great fan of the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR), in which (as anyone who reads Solid Waste & Recycling regularly knows) brand owners and other producers pay for the end-of-life management of products and packaging (rather than municipal ratepayers). Among the many potential virtues of EPR is that the polluter pays principle eliminates municipal subsidies and allocates costs where they belong -- with the people who can change the products -- and offers an economic incentive for waste minimization and design for environment (DfE) changes.

That being said, I’m not much of a fan of so-called “product stewardship” in the sense that, unlike EPR (with which it's often confused), many of the “first generation” product stewardship programs have simply seen an advance recycling fee stuck on various products (e.g., tires, motor oil, etc.) which are then managed by a collective. While product stewardship does have the benefit of getting some materials out of the municipal waste stream, the programs so far have been plagued with problems, including lack of accountability (in some cases), poor program performance (without repercussions), and high costs. Fact is, many of the programs lack things we take for granted as beneficial in the marketplace such as competition, which lowers costs and improves services over time. For some strange reason the very companies that swear by free markets for the products they sell at the retail level suddenly become Castro-style socialists when it comes to end-of-life management of discards, settling for production quotas and service monopolies that time and again have led to underperformance everywhere else they've been imposed.

There is perhaps no better example of the shortcomings of product stewardship than Ontario’s program for waste electronics and electrical equipment (WEEE), which has been expanded in a second phase to collect and supposedly divert a wide range of materials from disposal, including everything from cell phones to old TVs. The program sounds fine in theory and has given more than one environment minister a nice photo op and chance to say they’re “doing something for the environment.” However, when the program was being designed and discussed, our magazine and its contributing editors argued vociferously that the program would potentially become an enormous boondoggle for consumers, conceived as it was with the usual industry collective managing the materials in a quota system.

The program was introduced anyway, over our objections, so we waited to see. Now the results are coming in, and it ain’t a pretty picture. Turns out that Ontario’s WEEE program is not diverting anything like the amount of material it was supposed to. Worse, consumers are being dinged a lot of money at the cash register in the form of eco fees on things like new flat screen TVs, supposedly to pay for lots of waste diversion of old electronic equipment. Sadly, consumers aren’t getting value for money, by any yardstick. The program taking in large amounts of money and diverting very little waste. It appears that Ontario residents are paying for the world's most expensive, least effective product stewardship program for electronic waste.

Here are some quick Ontario WEEE facts that pretty much speak for themselves. The situation makes the recent debacle over household hazardous and special waste eco fees look like a well-thought out plan:

1. Ontario Electronics Stewardship (OES) – the collective that administers the program -- had budgeted to collect $74.4 million (See program plan at Page 109) for its first year of operation and collected well over $60 million (they claim reduced revenue due to the economic downturn);

2. In the first full year of operation OES recovered 17,000 metric tonnes of e-waste (Source: Waste Diversion Ontario [WDO] staff report); so

3. The OES program costs anywhere from $3,500 to $4,400 per tonne – by far the costliest e-waste program in the world;

4. Therefore, with Ontario consumers having paid over $60 million in electronic eco-fees the program has recovered 44% of the diversion target that it set for itself and only 18% of what is available in Ontario annually (96,841 tonnes as per the plan at page 27). The remaining 82% is headed where? South East Asia?

So, not only is it the most expensive per tonne; it’s also the world’s most ineffective. To further make the point,

5. Alberta recovers 4.74/kg of e-waste per capita at a cost of $1,900/tonne while Ontario recovers 1.42 kg/per capita. And even Alberta's program is no great shakes. As an absolute comparator Switzerland recovers about the same amount per capita as Alberta does at about half the cost.

6. Waste Diversion Ontario and Ontario Electronic Stewardship have not published a report on the performance of the Ontario WEEE program contrary to the Waste Diversion Act 2002 S 33. (1) “Each industry funding organization that is designated by the regulations as the industry funding organization for a waste diversion program shall, not later than April 1 in each year (a) prepare a report in accordance with this section on its activities during the previous year; and (b) provide a copy of the report to Waste Diversion Ontario and make the report available to the public.”

Maybe they're just really busy folks, but it’s pretty easy to imagine why no one wants to publish the results: the program is failing and is something of an embarrassment. One could cut the program operators some slack with the excuse that “it’s new” and time is needed to improve performance. That’s rubbish! The program is fatally flawed by its very design. Private electronics recyclers, including some of the leading companies in the world, have been suggesting program changes repeatedly – changes that would do away with the quotas and create incentives for competition and investment in this industry, with their suggestions falling on deaf ears.

It’s time for the environment ministry to take action, or for voters to voice this displeasure in next year’s provincial election.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 11:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The forthcoming October/November edition of Solid Waste & Recycling magazine will feature an editorial by me about the policy fiasco that was Ontario's stewardship program for household hazardous and special wastes. The mess led to the demotion of a minister and, incredibly, government forking over $8 million to further subsidize the municipal collection and diversion from landfill of industry's toxic crap, all because industry (and retailers) incensed the public by implementing confusing "eco fees" to offset its own program costs. But the aftermath continues, like a train wreck that keeps on going in slow motion.

The following article from the The Ottawa Citizen does a great job summing things up.

Collected eco fees stuck in limbo

Government, industry, retailers seem unclear what do with funds from scrapped program

By Lee Greenberg, The Ottawa Citizen, October 17, 2010

Days after Ontario scrapped its controversial eco fees, confusion reigns over the spoils of the short-lived program, as retailers, industry and the government all appear uncertain as to the destination of unspent funds.

The fees, designed to fund a recycling and disposal program for hazardous materials, were introduced July 1 on a wide range of items. Those products included pharmaceuticals, compact fluorescent light bulbs, household beach, camping fuel, caulking, solvents, fire extinguishers and thousands of other products.

The eco fees ranged from pennies to $6.66 per item.

Most consumers were caught off guard by the fees. Both government and the industry-funded group running the program, Stewardship Ontario, decided against a public education campaign to explain the new levies.

The government suspended eco fees on July 20 in the face of considerable public anger.

This week, Environment Minister John Wilkinson announced an end to all but a limited number of eco fees.

Rather than bringing clarity to the situation, however, that move now appears to have prompted more questions.

All sides appear unclear what to do with money collected in the first 19 days of July.

Retail giant Canadian Tire, which came under fire in July for its sloppy implementation of its eco fees, claimed Friday it had returned all of those fees to Stewardship Ontario.

When told by a journalist that Stewardship Ontario disputed that statement, a spokeswoman corrected it. Adrienne Alexander said both the calculations and the return of the funds "are in progress right now." "Our product stewardship team is going to contact SO (Stewardship Ontario) today to ensure that they are aware of where things stand on our end," Alexander, manager of corporate communications for Canadian Tire, wrote in an e-mail.

She would not say how much money Canadian Tire collected in eco fees.

Similarly, The Home Depot, which offered customers an initial refund on fees paid in July, says it plans on remitting the balance to Stewardship Ontario.

However, Stewardship Ontario says it wants nothing to do with the funds. The organization collects fees from the manufacturers of the products. Those producers then typically charge retailers who pass the costs on to consumers.

"We have no involvement in eco fees," said spokeswoman Amanda Harper Sevonty. "We don't govern eco fees, we don't set eco fees. So we're really not in a position to advise retailers as to how to handle them or what to do with them." Harper Sevonty said Stewardship Ontario is not planning on accepting any of the money collected from consumers during the first three weeks of the program.

"We're not able to accept it," she said. "Quite honestly, I'm not exactly sure of that process. If a retailer has collected that fee, then that goes back to the steward (producer)." Wilkinson, whose predecessor John Gerretsen was demoted as a result of his handling of the issue, refused an interview request to discuss the confusion.

"I'm not sure he's the best person to talk to on this," said an aide, Grahame Rivers.

Wilkinson's office referred the issue back to Stewardship Ontario.

New Democrat MPP Peter Tabuns said Wilkinson's response demonstrates a lack of leadership.

"It's his responsibility," Tabuns said in an interview. "The Liberal government set this whole mess rolling. Now that everyone's got a problem to deal with, they can't just turn their backs on it. They have to resolve it." Tabuns would like to see the unremitted eco fees sent to municipalities, who are again in charge of disposing and recycling fire extinguishers, rechargeable batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, needles, mercury-containing devices and pharmaceuticals.

The government said it will give municipalities $8 million to cover their costs.

Certain eco fees will remain in place. They cover items introduced in 2008, including paint, batteries, pesticides and pressurized containers.

Environment officials would not say how much money was collected from consumers in the limited lifespan of the July eco fees.

"This was an industry operated program," Wilkinson's office said in a statement.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 8:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thought the case reproduced below might interest readers. I offer no opinion as to the veracity of the account or the citizen's group perspective, but only that this is interesting food for thought, and a reminder that all might not yet be well with how municipal sewage sludge is land applied, nor interpretation of the relevant science.

From: Citizens for Sludge-Free Land
Published October 4, 2010

EPA Biosolids Regulation, Scientific Integrity Hang on Court Ruling

North Sandwich, New Hampshire-- A federal judge in Athens, GA is about to rule on a lawsuit filed by a former EPA research scientist and two dairy farmers over fake data EPA and the University of Georgia published to support a controversial EPA regulation. The case, which has national implications, involves treated sewage sludge, called "biosolids," regulated under EPA's 503 Sludge Rule. Biosolids typically contain unknown levels of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, organic solvents and other industrial pollutants and is widely distributed as a fertilizer.

David Lewis, a 32-year veteran research microbiologist in EPA's Office of Research & Development, published research linking biosolids use to widespread illnesses and several deaths. One case he studied involved hundreds of dairy cows, owned by the families of Andy McElmurray and William Boyce, which died after ingesting forage grown with biosolids produced by the City of Augusta, GA.

EPA's Office of Water, which developed the 503 Rule, issued UGA a grant in 1999 to help EPA investigate the cattle deaths. Augusta's records of the quality and application rates of its biosolids filed with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources mysteriously disappeared. Augusta recreated these records and gave them to an EPA employee, Robert Brobst, who published them in the UGA study. They falsely indicated that the quality of Augusta's biosolids dramatically improved in 1993 when the 503 Rule passed, and that its biosolids were applied at much lower than actual rates.

EPA used the study, which concluded that Augusta's sludge did not pose a risk to animal health, to convince the National Academy of Sciences to disregard the Georgia cattle deaths and conclude that there's no documented evidence that EPA's 503 Rule has ever failed to protect public health. Experts hired by the dairy farmers discovered the fraud; and Lewis and the dairy farmers filed suit when UGA refused to retract the bogus data.

Andy McElmurray filed a separate lawsuit when the USDA refused to compensate him for his land being too polluted to grow crops. U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Alaimo ruled in his favor, stating there was a "broad consensus" that the data Brobst gathered from Augusta were "unreliable, incomplete, and in some cases fudged." "In January 1999, the City rehired [a manager] to create a record of sludge applications that did not exist previously.”

Julia Gaskin, lead author of the questionable study, testified she knew there were problems with the data; but Brobst assured her that they were not "totally fabricated." Disagreeing with how EPA used her study, she believed biosolids harmed the dairy farms.

Based on a technicality, Judge Clay Land of the U.S. Circuit Court in Athens, GA dismissed the lawsuit filed by Lewis and the dairy farmers. UGA continues to refuse to retract Augusta's fabricated data; and Plaintiffs have asked the Court to reconsider.

Citizens for Sludge-Free Land (www.sludgefacts.org) is a national not-for-profit organization, dedicated to researching and disseminating information about the risks of land applying sewage sludges/biosolids and advocates regulatory reform that protects public health, agriculture, and the environment.

Contact:
Caroline Snyder, Ph.D.
603-284-6998
cgsnyder@post.harvard.edu

A commentary by Dr. David Lewis is posted at
http://www.sludgefacts.org/Ref110.pdf

Related Article
Virginia Farmers Deceived About Sewage Sludge Safety
http://www.enn.com/press_releases/3298

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 8:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The municipal elections in Ontario are just around the corner and the mayor’s race in the City of Toronto is being watched across Canada. Why? Because a shake up in the status quo may finally be at hand.

Voters are tired of the NDP-led government of David Miller in Toronto. They are tired of the endless debates about bike paths, new environmental programs that don’t work and cost millions, and the lack of competition in private sector contracts due to years of catering to union priorities in the city.

Rob Ford says he will change things and the long time incumbent councillor remains the wild card. More importantly he also remains the leader in the polls over the former Liberal Cabinet Minister in the McGuinty government, George Smitherman. Ford is driving the agenda. Smitherman is running scared and changing his policies to match the Ford message.

The “Anybody but Ford” movement is underway! Sarah Campbell, who had previously slammed Smitherman all over the place, abandoned her campaign and jumped on his bandwagon in an attempt to stop the Ford movement. A number of existing councillors are moving to support Smitherman in spite of his poor record on fiscal management. Smitherman is the guy who spent billions of taxpayer dollars on questionable programs when he was the Minister of Heath and Energy in the McGuinty government.

Some of the allegations being used against Ford are outright slanderous and it makes me think that Toronto has become as bad as the USA in low-ball underhanded tactics. Imagine this; at a recent candidates’ meeting some retired doctor stood up and accused Mr. Ford of being so overweight that his health may not allow him to finish his four year term. Unbelievable! Was this guy a plant from the Smitherman camp or another candidate’s camp? I hope everyone who thinks they are carrying a few extra pounds (probably 90% of us) is disgusted with these tactics and votes for Ford. Nobody is making personal attacks against Mr. Smitherman because he is openly gay and proud of it.

The attacks on Mr. Ford are dirty politics … Toronto style!

Stay the course, Mr. Ford, Canada is watching. You are a successful businessman who has for years made a positive contribution to politics in Toronto by preaching and practising austerity. You should be commended for saying, in essence, “let’s live within our means”.

What’s that commercial, “Built Ford Tough”? Hang in there, Mr. Ford, lots of people admire your guts!!!

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 1:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)