It is impossible to believe that another year has gone by.

Not sure where it went, but it was a year of interesting events. I actually completed and released my book, TRASHED, after a four year effort. I honestly wondered if I would ever get it completed. It never would have happened without the support and efforts of Elizabeth Fournier and my awesome editor, Joyce Gram.

And, to my surprise, we are getting excellent reviews from all who have read it. That makes it all worthwhile.

My book led me to writing this blog which I have come to enjoy. My thanks to Guy Crittenden, and his people, for creating the opportunity.

I am not sure how many readers there are for the blog but my resolution in 2011 will be to try and be more concise and interesting. I believe there is definitely a place for the real story of how the interaction of politics, the media and the environmental movement can affect projects, large and small, across Canada.

So, I’ll be taking a short break. I will be spending Christmas and New Year’s at my home in Canmore, Alberta; a little skiing and family time. By the way I will be cooking my fifth Christmas Dinner in a row - that is a record.

Be safe, and I look forward to touching base with you in the New Year.

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 10:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thought readers might find this article from La Presse interesting about insider moves in the Quebec cabinet that may impact deposit-refund in that province. It will be interesting to follow what happens in the next year or two...

A lobbyist against deposit return in the Minister’s cabinet
December 2, 2010

by Charles Côté, La Presse

The announced dissolution of Recyc-Québec and the recent hiring of a lobbyist by Minister Pierre Arcand are worrisome harbingers for the future of deposit return which currently applies to soft drink and beer containers.

The lobbyist, Jonathan Gagnon, was hired into the cabinet of the Ministre du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP) last September 20.

Prior to this, he worked on behalf of ÉcoEntreprises Québec, a consortium of major retailers such as the Société des alcools du Québec and manufacturers of food products like milk and juices. He was, in fact, still a registered lobbyist yesterday, an “omission” that was corrected during the day, according to a spokeswoman for Minister Arcand, Sarah Shirley.

In his capacity as a lobbyist, Mr. Gagnon has done some “awareness-raising efforts about municipal curbside collection programs before the MDDEP in connection with drafting the new waste management policy.”

Ms. Shirley confirms that waste management “is part of Mr. Gagnon’s attributions” within Mr. Arcand’s cabinet.

As for deposit return, “it will be studied and the decision will be made in 2011,” she said.

Wine, water, milk and juice bottles are not subject to deposit return. Companies in these sectors prefer recycling through curbside collection, which makes fewer demands on them.

“The future of deposit return is a preoccupation because the lobby for curbside collection is very strong,” said Karel Ménard (Front commun québécois pour une gestion écologique des déchets (FCQGED) –[Québec common front for ecologically-friendly waste management]).

Deposit return, however, if far more effective than curbside collection.

For example, the rate of recovery for beer bottles is nearly 95%. Each bottle is reused 10 to 12 times, whereas less than 50% of non-returnable glass goes through recycling bins and is never reused.

“Personally, I see this as a problem,” said Martine Ouellet, Opposition spokesman on the environment. It’s worrisome that a lobbyist should suddenly find himself within the cabinet. As a lobbyist, he (Mr. Gagnon) has clearly positioned himself in favour of curbside collection. It is flagrantly poor judgement on the part of a Minister to enlist a lobbyist. I think it is questionable on account of the extreme proximity of the dates and mandates entrusted to him.”

Ms. Shirley defends Mr. Gagnon’s hiring: “Insofar as people are hired on the basis of their skills, this implies that they have pertinent experience. And the law does not impose a waiting period to hire lobbyists.”

The deposit return system was managed by Recyc-Québec, who levied penalties against producers who did not meet standards of effectiveness.

Such penalties helped Recyc-Québec, a government corporation, accumulate over $40 million over the years, over and above its operating expenses. An excellent application of the “polluter pays” principle, according to many observers.

“We were not expecting Recyc-Québec to disappear,” said Martine Ouellet. What is the advantage of that? It is an organization that worked and did not cost anything. It makes one wonder, what is the Minister’s true agenda?

Announced last November 11, the dissolution of Recyc-Québec is a component of the measures contained in Bill 130, which puts into application the government’s 2010-2014 Action Plan to reduce and control expenses.

In a communiqué last month, Minister Arcand contended that integrating Recyc-Québec’s activities into his Department’s activities should save $2 million a year. Ms. Shirley indicated the Recyc-Québec’s obligations and contracts would be fully respected.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 12:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This news release about a new policy paper from the C.D. Howe Institute should be of great interest to anyone in the product stewardship or EPR realm.

Ontario’s “Eco-Fee Imbroglio” Holds Lessons for Other Provinces:
C.D. Howe Institute

Toronto, Dec. 9 – Charging producers for the life cycle cost of waste management is contentious, as shown by the recent controversy over “eco fees” in Ontario, but it can be an effective policy tool if done right, according to a study released today by the C.D. Howe Institute. In The Eco-Fee Imbroglio: Lessons from Ontario’s Troubled Experiment in Charging for Waste Management, professors Andrew Green and Michael Trebilcock use lessons from Ontario’s waste programs to examine the benefits of so-called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for waste management – when such programs are properly designed.
EPR programs need not suffer the fate of the failed Ontario hazardous waste program, say the authors. Policymakers can make these programs work through better institutional design, such as by setting realistic waste diversion targets, increasing competition among individual and collective waste diversion systems set up by producers, ensuring balanced representation between industry, environmental groups, and the public on the boards of waste diversion programs, and providing inducements to consumers to participate in the EPR program. Failure on these criteria may lead to unnecessary costs for consumers, with perhaps little environmental benefit.

For the study go to http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Commentary_316.pdf

For more information, contact:

Andrew Green, Associate Professor, University of Toronto
Michael Trebilcock, Professor of Law
University of Toronto

or

Ben Dachis, Policy Analyst
C.D. Howe Institute
Phone: 416-865-1904

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 9:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Hey Dalton, Tim, Andrea, did you get the message?

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has placed an insert in major newspapers across Ontario. I got mine this morning in the Toronto Sun. The Message! (copy of ad can be found at www.amo.on.ca)

1. Canadians produce more waste per capita than anyone else in the developed world
2. 40% OF ONTARIO GARBAGE IS SHIPPED TO THE U.S.
3. Since 1989, 649 of 730 landfills have filled up
4. WE ONLY HAVE 81 LANDFILLS LEFT

Since 1989, I have lived through the ‘political garbage’ that has created this crisis. I provide the details of those fourteen years in my book TRASHED – “How Political Garbage made the United States Canada’s largest dump”. Here’s a summary of why that happened.

In 1989, the Liberal Government of David Peterson had it right – they recognized the crisis in 1989 and were working with the regions to solve the problem. Unfortunately he lost the next election.

In 1990, the NDP Government of Bob Rae gave us Ruth Grier and her ideology and ridiculous idea of siting three huge landfills within the GTA. Mercifully Bob Rae lost that election, but Ontario lost four years in finding a disposal solution, and the crisis continued

In 1995, the Conservative Government of Mike Harris came to power. Scared off by the politics of garbage and, notwithstanding that new landfill approval is a provincial responsibility, Harris downloaded the crisis and called it a “municipal responsibility”. To make matters worse, in 2000, Harris refused to intervene when the City of Toronto screwed up a 20 year contact to send GTA waste to an approved site in Ontario. The result, Harris allowed 100% of Toronto’s garbage to go to Michigan, resulting in an international controversy, and the crisis escalated.

The Conservative Government of Ernie Eves wasn’t around long enough to screw anything up.

In 2004, the Liberal Government of Dalton McGuinty made the crisis worse. The Adams Mine had a valid Certificate of Approval with a capacity of over 23 million tonnes but, when the landfill was moving towards development, McGuinty arbitrarily passed a knee-jerk piece of legislation that revoked the Certificate of Approval. As a result, since 2004, companies in the waste management industry have refused to invest in new landfills in Ontario. Now, as evidenced by AMO’s “HEAP OF TROUBLE” advertisement, WE HAVE A RECOGNIZED, FULL BLOWN CRISIS.

While AMO is calling for greater recycling, it will not replace the need for new landfill capacity. Nor will incineration because we are shipping over 4 million tonnes of garbage annually to the USA and the new EFW plant in Durham will only take 140,000 tonnes per year. That’s a drop in the bucket.

However, I guarantee that, in the next provincial election in 2011, neither Dalton McGuinty, Tim Hudak or Andrea Horwath will have the ‘political will’ to address this crisis - it’s too hot to handle.

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 11:23 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

An important shift is rippling through a variety of industries as environmental concerns, such as greenhouse gas emissions, increasingly gain attention of policymakers and government leaders. For instance, earlier this year, Environment Canada announced that it will extend its established common standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from passenger automobiles and light trucks to heavy-duty vehicles. For companies that maintain large truck fleets, this marks an important change in the way we operate. It also presents an opportunity for companies to take action that serves not only to benefit their bottom line, but also to significantly reduce their carbon footprint.

In Canada, the transportation sector accounts for nearly a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. While heavy-duty vehicles comprise of only six percent of the total number of vehicles on the road, reducing emissions in this sector will help in part to achieve an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions levels. A number of Canadian companies are seeking cleaner burning fuels, such as liquid natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG). Both economical and environmentally-friendly, these alternative fuels have become more widely accepted worldwide due to rising oil prices, tougher emission standards and growing public demand for environmentally-conscious vehicles.

As part of its Vancouver Clean Air Initiative, Waste Management announced an agreement with Terasen Gas in September to supply fuel for 20 new “clean air” trucks as part of a long term conversion of its local fleet from diesel to CNG. Powered by CNG, these trucks are set to begin operation in January 2011, and mark the beginning of Waste Management’s program to build a “green fleet” to serve the Lower Mainland.

Trucks powered by natural gas are both economical and environmentally-friendly. For example, comparing current prices for CNG and diesel, fuel costs for the new Waste Management trucks would be 40 per cent less. Maintenance costs are expected to be lower because natural gas burns cleaner than diesel, so engine parts stay cleaner. Moreover, the clean-burning trucks will deliver distinct environmental benefits, including nearly zero air particulate, 23 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions, quieter engines and a smaller carbon footprint.
Currently, Waste Management operates the largest fleet of clean air CNG trucks in North America and is aggressively moving to put more clean fleets on the road, as conventional diesel trucks are retired.

Fleet use remains the largest market for natural gas vehicles (NGVs) as companies try to reduce fuel costs and lower emissions. For fleets that come home at night, such as transit and refuse fleets, natural gas creates a more attractive bottom line and a smaller environmental footprint. With more than 11 million NGVs in use around the world, NGVs are cleaner than, and as safe as their gasoline and diesel counterparts.

With demand for reducing emissions increasing, greater availability of clean fuel alternatives is necessary to fulfill these needs. Renewable resources, such as our everyday waste can be used to create these fuels, truly helping us at Waste Management to close the loop on our collection cycle, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas fleets help create a cleaner environment – something everyone can enjoy.

Posted by Wes Muir at 5:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This was sent around by Rep. Melissa Walsh Innes.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection Posts First Report under Maine’s Product Stewardship Law

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has completed its first report under the Maine Product Stewardship Law. This report, titled Implementing Product Stewardship in Maine, is available online at www.maine.gov/dep

Interested parties may submit comments on the report to the DEP until January 7, 2011. The DEP will provide the report and all comments received to the legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources by January 15, 2011.

Please direct comments and any questions to Carole Cifrino at 207-287-7720, carole.a.cifrino@maine.gov, or 17 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333.

This report was developed in accordance with the provisions of Title 38 §1772, Identification of candidate products; report, which reads (in part):

1. Policy; report. It is the policy of the State, consistent with its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, to promote product stewardship to support the State's solid waste management hierarchy under chapter 24. In furtherance of this policy, the department may collect information available in the public domain regarding products in the waste stream and assist the Legislature in designating products or product categories for product stewardship programs in accordance with this chapter. By January 15, 2011, and annually thereafter, the department may submit to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over natural resources matters a report on products and product categories that when generated as waste may be appropriately managed under a product stewardship program.

2. Recommendations. The report submitted under subsection 1 may include recommendations for establishing new product stewardship programs and changes to existing product stewardship programs.

The complete statute is included as Appendix B in the report.

We thank you for the interest in product stewardship in Maine.

Carole Cifrino, Manager
Product Management Programs
Division of Solid Waste Management
Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection
Phone: 207-287-7720; Fax 207-287-6220
Email: carole.a.cifrino@maine.gov

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 5:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have been waiting a week or so to gather my thoughts on this one.

The McGuinty Government has just approved the construction of a garbage incinerator in Durham Region, just east of the City of Toronto. – WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING!

The Region of Durham had originally made the commitment to dispose of their garbage at the Adams Mine, near Kirkland Lake, as part of a 20 year tender awarded to Rail Cycle North, a consortium that included Waste Management, Miller Waste, CN Rail, Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and the owner of the site, Notre Development.

Politics, as detailed in my book TRASHED, derailed the contract which would have looked after GTA municipal waste for 20 years at a price of approximately $54.00 per tonne, including transportation.

In 2004, with over 3.5 million tonnes of garbage going to Michigan from Ontario, the Regions still had no solution so we moved to begin construction of the site. The McGuinty government intervened and revoked the Certificate of Approval and killed the Adams Mine landfill. The Regions were left with no options other than exporting their waste to the USA for disposal; hence the incinerator.

Now, let’s be clear. I am not saying that the proposed incinerator (or, let’s be politically correct -- the Energy From Waste plant) is unsafe. All solutions have some environmental issues that must be mitigated, however, EFW is a recognized solution in many parts of the world.

However, where is the normal independent due diligence that a project of this size is always subjected to.

McGuinty approved this project because he had to. Ontario is still shipping 4 million tonnes of municipal and commercial waste to the USA. Toronto (a part of the GTA) with the province made a commitment to stop shipping municipal waste to Michigan by the end of 2010. In reality, the Regions of York (a partner in the plant) and Durham are part of that commitment.

And what about the cost? Well, that’s another story. I understand the plant will be owned by the Region but built and operated by the private sector. It will have a capacity of 140,000 tonnes per year and the construction cost will be $240 million dollars. That’s TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION DOLLARS. Yes, there will be hydro generated and a contract with Ontario Power Generation will provide some revenue. But, never in a million years will the cost to the taxpayer be as low as the option provided at the Adams Mine at $54 a tonne. It’s important to note that no public investment or taxpayer dollars were required for that option.

If all costs are factored in, I would bet that the disposal at the incinerator will exceed $100 per tonne and, as with any incinerator, they will still need a landfill for 20 to 30 percent of the ash generated by the operations.

In 2004, McGuinty had the audacity to eliminate a major disposal option for Ontario’s waste management crisis even after the Adams Mine landfill had undergone an independent environmental assessment hearing prior to receiving its Certificate of Approval.

To illustrate how the McGuinty government has defied common sense on this issue, it was the Harris government, the one supposedly soft on environmental issues, that demanded the independent hearing on the Adams Mine landfill. Now, in 2010, McGuinty approves an incinerator and will issue a Certificate of Approval, without a public hearing.

The man and his government are making it up as they go along! It’s a hell of a way to manage environmental risk.

P.S. Congratulations to Roger Anderson, Chairman of Durham Region, for having the political will to get this project to the approval stage.

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 12:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)