In the fall of 2011 a provincial election is coming in Ontario and the Liberal Government’s Green Energy and Economy Act is becoming more and more of a major election issue.

FIT stands for the “feed-in-tariff” which compensates companies who provide energy to the Ontario electrical grid from wind, solar, hydro and other “green” sources. The return is up to 64.2 cents for each kilowatt hour of power they produce. The catch is that this tariff, as reported in the National Post, is nearly ten times the current value of power in the Province.

The key is that McGuinty has provided the Samsung Corporation with investment incentives to sole source four wind manufacturing facilities in Ontario, and has made specific requirements for in-Ontario content in any contracts awarded, suggesting it will create up to 50,000 “green jobs”. The Conservative Party leader in Ontario suggests that the job numbers are “more fantasy than meeting reality”.

The National Post also noted that McGuinty’s green initiative has created a huge backlash. Specifically, the World Trade Organization is challenging the program; Japan has announced it is considering a formal legal challenge, and they have the support of the European Union and the United States.

A major competitor, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, has reacted and released a report calling the made-in-Ontario requirements “poison”! And, here comes the politics! Tim Hudak, leader of the opposition, has promised to kill the legislation if elected in 2011.

The companies that have spent millions gearing up to take advantage of these subsidies are now wondering what the hell will happen. With an election coming everyone is putting their “spin” on the issue. Sounds like “political garbage”, and is reminiscent of how the Adams Mine Landfill was spun and used in every election from 1990 to 2003.

What do I think of McGuinty’s Green Energy Act? It is another example of politics first. It is too much legislation, too fast, and for political expediency only. McGuinty meddled in the marketplace, without doing the proper due diligence, and the consumer backlash over the cost is killing him. His energy minister this week admitted that electricity rates will go up 46% over the next five years, much of it to pay for this “green energy” game plan. We must be green, but we must also be able to afford it.

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 12:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On Saturday morning I was having a coffee at the Intercontinental Hotel on Front Street in Toronto reading a column by Christie Blatchford in the Globe and Mail. I read Ms. Blatchford regularly, as should anyone who wants a no-holds-barred, honest opinion on issues relevant to all of us.

It was a coincidence because the night before I read about half of Christie Blatchford’s new book entitled “HELPLESS”. It is a non-fiction account of the native occupation in the Town of Caledonia, Ontario. The sub-title is; “Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed Us All”.

In the Saturday column, Ms. Blatchford talked about how she was invited to speak at the University of Waterloo last week. She describes how THREE protestors chained themselves together on the stage with bike locks. The local campus cop, who must have been a very brave individual, decided that things could get out of hand and cancelled the presentation.

Three people..... and things could get out of hand..... please help me.... who is in control here?

The column was especially interesting to me as Christie talked about the reaction she is getting to her book in certain quarters. She calls it “pushback”. She noted that because the main focus of the book is the inability of Ontario’s police force to apply the laws of the land equally to natives and whites, “some bookstores were reluctant to host signings or events for fear of a native backlash, some shows were less than keen to touch the subject for the same reason”.

Christie, I know where you are coming from. In my book, TRASHED, I talk about the role of the natives in opposing a valid and environmentally progressive waste management system for Ontario. I detail how Jack Layton, then on the City of Toronto council, used the First Nations and Chief Carol McBride to create an insurrection at the council meeting over disposal of waste at the Adams Mine Landfill near Kirkland Lake. Not one of the issues raised by the natives was proven valid or had any merit; but nobody would admit that.

In dealing with the natives, I make the comment in my book that, “you can win, but you will still lose”. Unfortunately, in this Province and across Canada, anything that is controversial that relates to the First Nations causes the politicians and, as the book HELPLESS details in great depth, at times, the police, to run and hide. Most of us are afraid to stand up and call it like it is.

Christie Blatchford is calling it like it is! Read her book - It’s very important!

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 11:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My friend Lawrence Solomon has been writing some excellent pieces recently, including fascinating send ups of the "common wisdom" around science and radiation. For instance, he wrote an interesting piece some time ago about a study in the UK on the use of cell phones. The study followed incidences of brain cancer and tumors etc. among frequent cell phone users. The study authors were surprised to discover that people who routinely hold a cell phone next to their ear are less likely to have these kinds of cancers than non-cell phone users.

The study authors then jumped to the conclusion that their study must be flawed and decided to conduct another one. Lawrence Solomon pointed out that this is a great example of scientists not accepting possibilities that differ from their expected outcomes. He noted that the scientists simply couldn't accept the possibility that their study shows that a small daily exposure to low-level energy from a cell phone might be beneficial. It just wasn't in their realm of possibility.

Anyway, Solomon recently published an interesting article in the National Post about Port Hope, Ontario that I reproduce below for the benefit of readers.

Port Hope — a hot spot that may be cool

Nuclear workers in Port Hope contract fewer cancers

by Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, November 13, 2010

Thirty-five years ago, Canada’s first radioactive cleanup of a contaminated town was ordered for Port Hope, Ont., after my organization, Energy Probe, proved and publicized gross violations of radiation safety standards. Today, 35 years and many protests with many high-profile environmentalists later, the issue of contamination has not gone away. The earth-moving equipment is back for yet another cleanup and local environmental groups are bringing in yet another high-profile anti-nuclear activist — Dr. Helen Caldicott, head of Physicians for Nuclear Responsibility, who is calling for the town’s 16,500 residents to be relocated before its “carcinogenic time bomb” explodes.

One thing has changed, though. My organization is no longer confident that low levels of radiation, such as those that now remain in Port Hope, pose a danger. To the contrary, a growing body of evidence indicates that low levels of radiation could actually confer a health benefit. Rather than continuing the 10-year $260-million-plus cleanup that has just begun, or contemplating the more extreme measure of closing down the town, the safest course to take may well be to move out the bulldozers instead of the townsfolk.

Port Hope, a pretty town on the shores of Lake Ontario 100 kilometres east of Toronto and home to the country’s largest rehabilitation involving low-level radioactive waste, may be the most researched, rehabilitated, remediated and monitored community in the world. Port Hope became a major uranium refining town during the Second World War as part of the Manhattan Project, under the auspices of a federal Crown corporation, Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd. Since the first cleanup began in the mid-1970s, various government agencies have moved some 100,000 tonnes of contaminated soils to other locations, have managed another two million tonnes and, after the next move of contaminated soils is completed in 2020, have plans to supervise the new repository for the next 500 years. Meanwhile, other government agencies have overseen 30-odd environmental studies and 13 epidemiological studies of the health of residents who may have been contaminated over the decades.

The many studies generally show that the town’s level of radioactivity, and the health of its residents, is no different from that found in other communities. That doesn’t allay the fears of many, who fear radioactive hot spots, who rightly point out that no full-scale independent public environmental assessment has ever been carried out and who note that official bodies — those in Canada included — state there is no safe level of radiation.

Yet the view that radiation is dangerous in small doses is no less contestable than the conclusions of the many studies done to date. All of the official bodies that state that low levels of radiation are dangerous freely admit that they have no proof for their belief. In the absence of information, they say, the only prudent course is to assume that radiation poses danger in small doses as well as large.

Yet the information is now coming in, say many scientists who study the effects of low levels of radiation on human health. And it shows that low levels of radiation tend to be healthful, or hormetic, to use the medical term.

The planet has many regions that are naturally high in radiation because of the minerals in the ground or because of elevation — the higher up you live, the higher the dose of radiation you receive. Some parts of North America are 10 times more radioactive than others. Those who live in high-radiation regions tend to contract fewer cancers. One study found a 25% higher cancer mortality rate in the lowland states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, than in the Rocky Mountain states of Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico, where residents receive five times as much radiation. Colorado does especially well, with a cancer mortality rate 30% below the national average for males and 25% for females.

Our government assumes that radiation plays no role in protecting the townsfolk of Port Hope, but that assumption, too, has no basis. The studies of nuclear workers in Port Hope show them to contract fewer cancers, and to live longer, than the general population of Port Hope, and also those who live in Port Hope contract fewer leukemias than those who live in the nearby area.

Could the benefit of working in proximity to radiation be an indication of radiation’s beneficial effect? Port Hope residents don’t know. “The studies weren’t designed to look for hormetic effects,” explained Patsy Thompson, director deneral of the federal government’s Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment.

But Port Hope residents should know. “If I were from Port Hope, what I would be asking for is a full environmental assessment, and a public hearing that gives the people who live in that area the right to question and cross-examine the scientists and so-called experts who draft the conclusions,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., another environmentalist whom local organizers brought to Port Hope in an earlier protest that attempted to get at the truth of what radiation means for Port Hope. “I can’t understand that there’s any reason why that kind of hearing shouldn’t exist.”

There is no reason. A full assessment that allowed all parties to bring forward independent environmental and health experts, and then have them withstand expert challenges, would at a minimum remove uncertainty and spur swift remediation — this picture postcard town, which boasts more heritage buildings per capita than anywhere else in Canada, loses tourist dollars as well as pride of place whenever its environment is disparaged.

At a maximum, the evidence would show that radiation in small doses enhances life, that there’s no reason to fear invisible threats in their air or water, and that $260-million doesn’t need to be spent fixing a non-problem. The endeavour would be worthy. Port Hope should live up to its name.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 10:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier this week I talked about the environmental clean-up of low level nuclear waste in Port Hope.

A noted anti-nuclear activist, Dr. Helen Caldicott, used inflammatory statements against the project, notwithstanding that it was the subject of more than ten years of research and was supported by the vast majority of Port Hope residents.

Dr. Caldicott spoke to a small audience, reported to be about 225 people, and slammed the project creating headlines in the media including, as I noted earlier, the Toronto Star. I understand the event had to be held in Oshawa because the original location in Port Hope withdrew their support of Dr. Caldicott. As is often the case, these self-proclaimed “experts” have no real investment either in the project, or the people they are talking about. In reality they are just “hired guns” brought in by opposition forces.

But, for a change, people are fighting back against these hired guns. I understand David Suzuki was involved in this debate earlier, again as a hired gun, with no real knowledge of the issues. The Mayor of Port Hope, Linda Thompson, was live on Canada AM this morning setting the record straight that Dr. Caldicott was using “drive-by science” in making her claims. Refuting Caldicott’s statement that Port Hope is a nuclear graveyard sitting unchecked, Mayor Thompson stated strongly that Port Hope is a healthy and safe community and is likely the most monitored community in Canada adding that health studies have been done many times since 1932. In terms of radiation levels Mayor Thompson says that Banff, Alberta has a higher level of radiation than Port Hope. Caldicott’s statements have made the town “really mad” says the mayor and “they are hitting the problem head on”.

Here’s a second interesting item. On Tuesday I stated how the Toronto Star ran a story where the headlines, and content, looked to favour Dr. Caldicott. Well yesterday, I am sure in response to outrage from the Mayor of Port Hope and many others, the Star balanced the reporting with a new article and headline providing the real details.

Unfortunately, as I have witnessed first hand for many years, the media reports the sensational items first, with no regard as to whether the allegations are true, and playing catch-up is hard to do.

Congratulations to the Mayor of Port Hope and to the residents who are not about to let the reputation of their community be slammed by an outsider. We need more politicians like this!!

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 3:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Our new workshop for business, municipalities and developers is called “WINNING THE WAR” –How to Identify & Manage Opposition to Your Project”..... and, there are a few wars going on out there....

After more than ten years of discussion, debate and controversy, not counting the millions of real dollars spent and the additional few million man-hours invested by the developer and the opposition, the Ontario Municipal Board rejected the application by James Dick Construction for a major quarry in Southern Ontario. It’s a major win for the environmental opposition and a loss for the aggregate industry.

Just like landfills, it is becoming almost impossible to site new quarries or aggregate operations within populated areas. Notwithstanding, just as waste disposal facilities must be an essential component of an environmentally progressive society, aggregate supply remains essential to the growth and maintenance of our transportation system.

The low-level radioactive waste clean-up, by Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. in Port Hope, has begun. It is a ten year, $260 million dollar initiative that has been extensively studied and debated. Now, an activist named Dr. Helen Caldicott has generated headlines in the Toronto Star this week, and last week, with an irrational statement which she has not backed up with any evidence. She says she is “almost certain” that radium is leaking into Lake Ontario, and the town should be abandoned, and the government sued for millions.

What is the media influence? Well, there is an article of more than a few hundred words and two negative headlines that seems to play up the inflammatory comments of Caldicott, while there is only three lines quoting the Mayor of Port Hope who called Caldicott’s remarks “sensationalism”. It was reported that only 200 people attended this talk; hardly representative of the community as a whole. Again, environmental activism and the media are often an incestuous relationship and “It is your responsibility, as a proponent, to manage it”; a key point in our workshop “Winning the War”.

And finally, is today the day the McGuinty government decides on the new incinerator in Durham Region? If this is approved without a public hearing I will have a few interesting comments to make, to say the least.

Have a great day.....

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 2:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Okay, for about a week I've left the reply up in this space from Ontario Electronic Stewardship’s (OES) to my blog entry criticizing Ontario's program for waste electronics and electrical equipment (WEEE). (See "Ontario's WEEE program world's costliest and worst?" October 21, 2010.) Now it's time to respond.

It's important to note that my initial blog entry regarding the performance of Ontario Electronic Stewardship’s (OES) WEEE program was made at a time when OES had failed to publish any reports of its program performance for over 6 months -- contrary to S. 33 of the Waste Diversion Act. When OES did respond to my blog post they never mentioned anywhere in their response that a summary of the program’s performance was quietly posted on Waste Diversion Ontario’s (WDO) website sometime late in October. That report-- not to be found on OES’s own website -- OES Report on Performance of Phase 1 Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Program April 1, 2009 to March 31 2010 confirms the following

• Verification that OES collected a total of 17,303 tonnes in its first year of operation (Page 7) and that OES collected $44,508,436 in eco-fees from consumers in its first year (Page 8) – therefore the Year 1 WEEE program cost Ontario electronics consumers $2,572.30/tonne – the most expensive in Canada. This number does not jive with the unreferenced $1,604/tonne claimed by OES. Why?

• The Ontario WEEE program recovered 1.31 kg/person in its first year of operation -- the lowest in Canada - versus 1.9 kg WEEE/person for Alberta in its first year of operation -- an abysmal disaster given that the GTA alone has 51% more people in it than does all of Alberta.

I would make a couple of additional points about OES’ response in context of the Report on Performance:

• I'm not sure what a global recession has to do with pulling WEEE from people’s basements and into the Ontario WEEE diversion program; in fact were OES to reward people financially for returning WEEE for recycling that probably would do more for increasing recovery in a downturned economy than otherwise. That OES also cites the Toronto garbage strike as part of the cause for poor performance just makes the case that OES is relying on municipalities to recover what the OES program should be proactively recovering through financial incentives and a comprehensive collection network.

• The revised “baseline” for all WEEE generated in Ontario available for collection is 63,968 tonnes (Page 15) of which OES recovered again only 17,303 -- that means 46,665 tonnes or 73% tonnes of e-waste flowed outside of the OES program to places unknown.

• OES planned to have 9,994 tonnes of electronics sent for refurbishment and reuse in year 1 but only managed 215.7 tonnes or 2% of their target.

• 3,314 retails signed up with OES to collect eco-fees from consumers and pay them directly to OES on electronic product manufacturers’ behalf. So, where the Ontario government has been claiming manufacturers pay for the program in fact manufacturers have signed up retailers to levy consumers directly and thereby take themselves out of the payment process completely.

It is not true that our, “…magazine and editors always opposed the concept much less the reality of the OES program.” What we have opposed is how the OES program is designed not to work. OES employs a bizarre quota and allocation scheme that undermines rather than promotes the recovery and recycling of WEEE. That the OES program would fail was predicted in 2008 when a group of Ontario processors noted that what OES was proposing as its WEEE diversion plan was, “…a monopolistic “flow control” model (with a new convoluted OES processor tendering scheme to provide a price control scheme with a façade of “competition”) that will achieve nothing except disruption to the existing collection and processing market.”

Fast forward almost three years and that is exactly what has happened. The OES economic design of its program is fatally flawed. Consider this description of the OES model by Sims Recycling Solutions -- Ontario’s largest WEEE processor (and one established long before Ontario’s WEEE program arrived):

“Under the WEEE program all WEEE collected by registered collectors is consolidated (in OES controlled consolidation centers) and then allocated to WEEE processors under a quota system. There is no way for a processor to “grow the business” -- any WEEE collected by a given processor on its own initiative is then allocated to its competitors by OES based on the set quotas.

As an example, if Sims Recycling Solutions were to organize and fund a creative collection event (say through a school board or Rotary Club) we would only receive our allocated 30% of the WEEE we collect for processing despite the fact that Sims Recycling Solutions was responsible for recovering 100% of this material. The other approved processors would receive the remaining 70% of what Sims Recycling Solutions collected despite not being involved in the development or execution of the innovative collection event.”

The most fundamental problem is that while OES operates this quota system and its stewards pass on electronic stewardship eco-fees to consumers, the financial incentives paid to OES approved WEEE processors registered with its program are insufficient for them to compete with entirely unregulated WEEE “recycling” businesses operating outside of the Ontario WEEE program. The result is that most WEEE generated in the province bypasses the OES program and is simply brokered out-of-province to destinations unknown.

As remedy I think the government:

-- Should dissolve OES and call for a new Industry Funding Organization that includes participation of stewards, WEEE processors (reuse/refurbishers and recyclers), environmental groups and consumer advocates;

-- The WEEE program should have diversion targets and environmental performance standards written into regulations under the Waste Diversion Act;

-- WEEE stewards need to be held to the Competition Act to ensure that both recyclers that provide service to the program and consumers that pay electronic stewardship eco-fees are protected from anti-competitive behavior.

-- WEEE materials should be banned from landfill (with the ban phased in as diversion options become available, but the phase in should not be overly drawn out).

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 2:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I read an interesting article on the front page of the New York Times on Monday November 8th relating to the cost of renewable energy.

Basically, the writer notes that some regulators across the USA are rejecting the high cost of power generated from both wind farms and solar energy. A contract to sell power to a utility in Virginia was rejected with state regulators quoted as saying; “The ratepayers of Virginia must be protected from the costs for renewable energy that are unreasonably high”.

With the McGuinty government in the process of awarding huge long-term contracts for wind farms, Ontario taxpayers are being locked into higher than normal costs. Yes, we must make a commitment to renewables but, with the cost of natural gas extremely low and the continued development of major coal assets, will governments, during this time of economic struggle, keep providing the tax credits and subsidies necessary for renewable energy and clean power initiatives?

As noted in the article; “A weak economy and abundant supplies of energy from inexpensive fossil fuels have caused the investment in wind energy generation in the United States to fall behind that of Europe and China.”

With the results of the recent election in the USA and the anticipated deadlock in government through until at least 2012, renewable investments may take a hit. Will Canada be far behind?

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 2:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On behalf of Waste Management I offer thoughts on a new program called Greenopolis from Anthony Zolezzi, Greenopolis' Creative Director. -- Wes Muir

North America is swimming in a sea of recyclables, both literally and figuratively. Because while many of the bottles and cans we use every day are being put to reuse, most are still ending up on the sides of roads, in our oceans and taking up space in our landfills. According to stats from Earth911:

• Americans buy 29.8 billion water bottles every year
• Plastic accounts for 4 percent of US energy consumption
• Tossing away one aluminum can wastes as much energy as half a can of gasoline.

These are some pretty incredible numbers, and say nothing about all the other materials currently going to waste, like food, glass and paper. But while the problem is large, so is the opportunity, and right now is a great time for change. With more people becoming aware of their footprints and with new technologies coming out at every turn, now is when the next generation of recyclers is making their mark.

A new way to recycle

The need for innovation is the main reason the Greenopolis Recycling System was launched just about two years ago, which I helped develop. In creating Greenopolis, we established an interactive platform that uses both physical and digital technology to make recycling easy, fun and rewarding for its users. Today, with more than 30,000 Facebook fans and 60,000 Twitter followers, Greenopolis is firmly taking its place as a leading next generation recycler.

To give you a sense of how the technology works, here’s a quick step-by-step:

• People deposit recyclables into digital kiosks located at high-traffic locations across the United States (we are soon looking to expand in Canada)
• Points are given for every item recycled
• Points are redeemable on greenopolis.com for a variety of discounts from restaurants, theaters and retail establishments
• Users may also go online to track their progress and learn about sustainable living

The goal of Greenopolis is to use both digital and physical platforms to advance awareness and increase recycling. And while there are a lot of programs that allow people to deposit bottles and cans, Greenopolis is one of the few that actually rewards its users for recycling. And not only that, it rewards people for participating on its website (Greenopolis.com), playing Oceanopolis (its Facebook game) and using a number of its other social networking properties (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).

The web portal we operate is loaded with sustainable facts and tips on living a lifestyle that’s good for the environment. The rewards program is expanding—the things people can earn vary from zip code to zip code, but range from big-named companies to local mom-and-pops.

Since launching this technology, we have captured over 5 million items and distributed more than 9 million points, and this is growing everyday. On average, a single Greenopolis Recycling Kiosk captures 285 plastic bottles and 185 aluminum cans a day, which means that in one year, one kiosk will offset more than 400 thousand pounds of CO2. That’s making an impact.

The program, however, isn’t stopping there. We are expanding into new areas to capture even more materials.

Currently Greenopolis is testing software called Scan@Home, which allows people to scan items they recycle at home to earn reward points through Greenopolis.com. The technology is simple to use and is currently being integrated into several cellular devices, including iPhones and Androids. Imagine earning rewards for something you (hopefully) are already doing at home.

Another new venture, still in the early stages but with lots of potential, is toy recycling, which recently had a pilot event in Vancouver, British Columbia. In partnership with the Canadian Toy Association, Greenopolis launched its first ever electronic toy recycling event, where we basically had lines of kids returning their unwanted toys. Everything with a bar code was scanned, and while kids were given points for their participation, we also had raffles to give rewards on the spot.

Whether its bottles, cans or toys, Greenopolis represents a big step in recycling. Not only are we collecting items to reuse, but we are integrating digital software, online participation and in-person interaction. We are rewarding users and changing behaviors one bottle at a time. That’s recycling for a new generation.

Anthony Zolezzi
Creative Director, Greenopolis

Posted by Wes Muir at 4:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the interest of fairness, I have reproduced a letter from Carol Hochu, Executive Director of Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) responding to my recent blog post about Ontario's underperforming (in my opinion) WEEE program. I offer the letter unedited and in its entirety without editorial comment. I will leave this posted for a week and next week (Monday, November 15) probably comment or reply to it in this space, depending on other comments that might be posted. My goal has been to get a conversation going about this program. Anyway, here's Ms. Hochu's letter:

I am writing in response to the blog posting from your editor-in-chief Guy Crittenden dated October 21st (Ontario WEEE Program World’s Costliest and Worst?). Given that Mr. Crittenden obviously shares Ontario Electronic Stewardship’s (OES) commitment to the safe and responsible diversion of electronic waste in our province, it is a shame that he didn’t take more time to research the topic. The posting contains incorrect facts and misleading comparisons and assertions that can only be fairly described as unfounded. All of these could have been avoided with the benefit of contact with OES to confirm information. One also suspects that, at the heart of the matter, is a fundamental policy difference as to how electronic waste should be managed in Ontario – and by whom. Such differences of opinion are well worth debating, but only in the presence of a transparent and accurate set of facts.

Allow me to highlight just a few of the most glaring examples:

• The posting says that Ontario’s WEEE program is the most costly in the world at $3500 to $4400 per tonne. This is incorrect. The true cost for the Year 1 WEEE program was $1604 per tonne. Publicly posted data obtained from most recent annual reports for various provincial programs shows the per tonne cost varies from roughly $1180 to $1840 per tonne. OES fits comfortably within that range, notwithstanding the fact that the program has only just completed 18 months of operation.

• The author condemns the efficacy of OES’ performance as compared to Alberta. But his figures are misleading. To compare Ontario’s performance in its first year of operation with Alberta’s performance in its fifth year will obviously lead to exaggerations. With four additional years of operations, consumer education and community involvement, any jurisdiction is going to do better. A fair comparison would be to ask what Alberta did in its second year of operation as compared to where Ontario stands now half-way through its second year. The answer is that Alberta was handling1.9Kg/per capita of electronic waste whereas Ontario is managing 2.39Kg/per capita as of September 30th (i.e. after 6 months of our second year of operations).

• The posting makes much of the fact that OES collected only 17,000 tonnes of e-waste during its first year of operation. While accurate, that figure is employed in a misleading fashion. All early-year WEEE-type programs underperform as compared to later years. In Ontario’s case, not only did the program launch during a global recession, it was challenged by host of issues including a city-wide municipal strike in Toronto (the program’s largest municipal collector), legacy contract obligations in many municipalities that reduced initial local participation in OES, and the natural nascent awareness issues that will confront any first year program, to name but three. Evidence that these factors are not only germane but are being overcome is found in the fact that to-date, OES Year 2 performance has improved by more than 100%.

There are other examples of weak arguments. Comparing Ontario’s program performance with Switzerland, for example, is strange. Europe includes wholly distinct categories of product (e.g. white goods) within its programs, boasts significant cultural and geographic differences when it comes to recycling and waste diversion habits, and has had a far longer experience in this program area.

OES does not lay claim to perfection. Due to the factors cited earlier, we did witness a lower-than-desired rate of participation in Year One. Naturally, we are eager to see stronger results. However, the program is confronting its challenges, building momentum and improving its performance. Tonnes collected are up substantially compared to the first year. New incentives have been implemented that will intensify our service provider participation. And a comprehensive performance audit with WDO is scheduled to begin shortly. Ontarians should have no doubt as to the commitment from OES to ongoing and demonstrable performance improvement.

It bears mentioning however, that underlying the errors and questionable arguments, there remains a fundamental disagreement of policy. It is even acknowledged by the author when he states that his magazine and editors always opposed the concept much less the reality of the OES program.

Given the editor’s fondness for jurisdictional comparisons, it may come as a surprise to learn that the facts are clear: When jurisdictions involve industry and retailer collectives in taking responsibility for e-waste, results get delivered. This approach places performance under a spotlight. It creates accountability. It incentivizes action. Jurisdictions without WEEE programs such as OES simply don’t get the diversion job done.

OES welcomes the opportunity discuss its performance and its operations with those in the industry. We are in constant search of improvements and therefore welcome such advice. However, we naturally ask that any such dialogue be based on actual data, facts and fair comparisons. Perhaps in the future, we can work more closely to ensure an objective and unerring set of facts is offered to the public.

Sincerely,

Carol Hochu, Executive Director
Ontario Electronic Stewardship

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 4:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The first Canadian Waste Sector Symposium, organized and sponsored by the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA), was held this week. The event was oversubscribed and Rob Cook, OWMA’s Executive Director, and his assistant, Michelle Goulding, did an outstanding job with every last detail planned and executed. Attendance at the breakout sessions were standing-room only, with attendees from across Canada taking in the messages from very informative panels.

I was honoured to be the keynote dinner speaker on Tuesday night. The attendance was great and I trust my message on Politics, the Environment and the Media provided some insight into the challenges that all projects face today when it comes to approval and implementation. It was fun!!

Also, my thanks to Susan Antler of the Composting Council of Canada for inviting me to speak at their luncheon on Thursday during the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo which is Canada’s only national tradeshow serving the waste, recycling and public works market. The dedication shown by Susan, and her staff, to composting efforts across Canada is commendable. Our question and answer session at the luncheon was really enlightening on waste management issues in the country.

My sincere congratulations to Rob and his staff at OWMA and to Susan and her staff at the Composting Council for a job well done.

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 11:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I will be at the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) "Canadian Waste Sector Symposium" at the Westin Bristol Place Toronto Airport (950 Dixon Road) on Tuesday, November 2. Then, on Wednesday November 3 and Thursday November 4 I'll be at the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo at the International Centre, 6900 Airport Road in Mississauga. People wishing to say hello and chat can catch up with me at these events this week. I'll only be on email sporadically. -- Guy Crittenden

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 1:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)