As reported recently by the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) and reported in an earlier blog post by Guy Crittenden, the issue of Canadian waste entering may be heating up again.

As they are want to do, the Americans have wrapped themselves in their flag of national security citing concerns with the potential radioactivity of our wastes crossing the border- a truly dirty bomb they must imagine. Currently less than 1% of our wastes are checked for radioactivity.

The succinct “Stop Canadian Trash Act” proposes a $500 fee per truck to cover off Homeland Security costs and would impose a $10,000 penalty each time an operator failed to provide the U.S. Customs and Border Protection information relating to the volume and contents of each vehicle.

Quite frankly it sounds like a creative approach to protectionism or some misguided attempt to stifle commerce. Regardless of what it is we should take it seriously. Previous efforts have pretty much halted Ontario’s residential waste crossing the border.

What would Ontario do if Michigan shut the border tomorrow?

Is there a Plan B? Perhaps every available landfill with available space would find themselves with Emergency Certificates of Approval, voluntary or otherwise, to deal with the wastes. Waste disposal would become expensive quickly.

A simple question: Why does Ontario allow itself to outsource out so much of its waste disposal capacity to another country? There has been a lack of planning and political will to ensure there is sufficient disposal capacity in this province. My fellow blogger Gordon McGuinty is much more elegant in that regard www.trashedpoliticalgarbage.com.

It is a problem that needs to be addressed. We should have sufficient domestic capacity to manage our own wastes so we don’t have to rely on others. From a pragmatic perspective if we assume that 4 million tonnes of IC&I waste continue to cross the border and we ascribe a US tipping fee of $30/tonne we are letting $120 million slip across the border each year.

If the US does not want our commerce why don’t we find a way to keep those revenues in this province?

Posted by Paul at 5:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I had a great time at the Municipal Waste Association conference in Hockley Valley on 18 and 19 May. As I said to Sue McCrae the outgoing president the MWA consistently puts on great and well organized events.

This year’s conference featured a keynote by Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller as well as a panel of politicians, including Ontario’s current environment Minister, John Wilkinson.

Mr. Miller spoke about how we just are not moving waste diversion along at an acceptable pace. We have identified the problem and identified solutions but cannot seem to get around to implementing all the solutions. Because the process takes so long we are stuck in an iterative loop that features questioning the problems and re-identifying solutions.

The Minister spent his time discussing the progress the government has made and acknowledging last year’s challenges with the Eco Fees. Toby Barrett, the Progressive Conservative environmental critic rambled, quite frankly, and touched on a number of issues, such as Waste Diversion Act (WDA) reform and of course the Eco Fees. He did not put forward a clear policy his party would implement. Although they don’t align so much with my political persuasions the best talks were given by the NDP and Green party candidates. In particular the Green Party member was well spoken and actually had a plan. He identified a number of key issues including: The WDA fails to prioritize reduce and reuse, instead focusing on recycling; there is a skewed cost structure for landfilling; there are no financial incentives to reduce waste generation.

Posted by Paul at 2:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Politics + the Environment + the Media; the game begins again.

Ontario has a provincial election coming in the fall of 2011. For months the Liberals and the media have been demanding that Tim Hudak, the leader of the Conservative Party in Ontario, articulate his own policies rather than just attacking those of Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Well to his credit, Hudak dropped a bombshell last week. Mr. Hudak has continually attacked the “green energy” policies of the McGuinty government. Specifically the sweetheart deals (as he calls them) that have encouraged new alternative energy developments, like wind and solar installations, but have resulted in kilowatt hour costs that are up to 20 times the existing rates.

As controversial is McGuinty’s decision to sole-source a contract with the South Korean, multi-national Samsung to build plants to manufacture wind turbine components in Ontario. The Liberals contend that the deal, valued at $7-billion, will create up to 50,000 “green jobs”. However, there has been no construction on these facilities to date.

Tim Hudak calls these programs and the deals “unsustainable for the taxpayer” adding that if he is elected in 2011, he will abandon and scrap both the Samsung deal, and the wind and solar contracts for alternative energy.

Now, for a politician going into an election... that takes balls!!! I think it was a smart move. He stakes out his ground, he follows up on his opposition to these deals with a concrete policy, and he now makes the Liberals defend themselves. I also like his timing; he took a stand well in advance of the election because the “war” over the policy will be fought out in the press and the public, before the election.

The facts are simple. The environment will not be a major issue in the next election. Jobs, the economy, and the management of each will be the issue. As we just witnessed in the Federal election, hardly a word was said about the environment, even though the oil sands out here in Alberta have been a major international issue for the last 24 months. In the fall it will be the same in Ontario.

Hudak is also right on the sole sourced contract with Samsung. A contract given to one company, without competitive bidding, goes against free enterprise. The wind industry is in the doldrums due to cost and the environmental opposition to siting turbines. McGuinty, as a result of public opposition, has taken the normal political move and changed the rules, putting developments on hold or eliminating them altogether. Remember the Adams Mine Landfill anyone!!!!

Over the past fifteen years I have often watched politicians try to use environmental issues for political gain. Good intentions aside, this is what McGuinty did with his policy on alternative energy. Hudak has demonstrated the courage to call him on it. It will be a fight but, in today’s economic environment, Hudak will win this one.

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 3:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This article from the May 14 edition of the Montreal Gazette suggests that deposit-refund systems are alive and well La Belle Provence, despite some rumours to the contrary, and are poised for expansion.

Minister toasts deposit return

Arcand says he is looking to improve system

BY MICHELLE LALONDE, GAZETTE ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

MAY 14, 2011

Quebec's environment minister says rumours that the province is poised to abolish the deposit-return system on beverage containers are false. In fact, Pierre Arcand says he is considering increasing deposit amounts and expanding the program to include wine bottles.

Arcand made the comments at a news conference Friday where an environmental group was launching a new, province-wide coalition called Pro-Consigne Québec that will work to improve and expand the deposit-return program.

Last November, Arcand announced the government would be reviewing the deposit system on beverage containers, such as soft drink cans. This alarmed environment groups, who feared the minister was listening to soft drink retailers and other industry players who don't like the deposit-return system because it costs them money.

But Arcand says he is examining which system, curbside recycling or deposit-return, would result in more drink containers being recuperated and he will make his decision based on which proves to be most effective at keeping recyclables and reusables out of the waste stream.

He said he has not made the decision yet, but he attended yesterday's news conference to clarify that he was not against deposit-return systems.

"I simply wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to say very clearly that we do not intend to eliminate the deposit-return system at all and if I had to give you my personal opinion, I think the two systems will be used in parallel for a long time."

But according to Karel Ménard of the Front commun québecois pour une gestion écologique des déchets, deposit-return systems for all beverage containers is clearly the best environmental choice and the minister only needs to improve and expand the existing system to get better results.

The deposit price has been 5 cents on soft drink containers and beer bottles since the system was introduced in 1984.

Ménard said it is obvious that price should be at least doubled to encourage consumers to return the containers for a refund.

He noted that Quebecers buy about a billion plastic bottles of water each year and about half of those end up as litter or in landfill sites. Meanwhile, from 68 per cent to 93 per cent of drink containers with a deposit on them are recuperated.

The city of Montreal's Alan De-Sousa says expanding the depositreturn system to include plastic water bottles and wine bottles is a "no brainer."

"For me, it's a no-brainer that if other communities and other provinces have put in place a take-it-back system for wine bottles, well, we can also have our SAQ do the same," De-Sousa, Montreal's executive committee member responsible for sustainable development issues, said at the launch.

The cities of Montreal and Laval are members of the Pro-Consigne Québec Coalition along with about 20 environmental groups, unions, and industry groups such as the Aluminum Association of Canada, and the Quebec Brewers Association.

mlalonde@montrealgazette.com

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 3:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over the years anyone who has dealt with the City of Toronto on any issue that may impact on the environment has run across the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA). For years Jack Layton used them as his personal cheerleading section and as a vehicle to support his opposition to private sector developments in Toronto.

The executive director of TEA is Franz Hartmann. I know Mr. Hartmann. During the years of the Adams Mine landfill debate in Toronto, Mr. Hartmann was the environmental advisor to Jack and once made the comment that: “Layton’s office was the epicentre of the anti-Adams Mine campaign in Toronto.”

I mention in my book, TRASHED, that Hartmann actually wrote an article called: “Citizens can prevail: A personal perspective on how public mobilization defeated a proposal to ship Toronto’s waste to an abandoned mine in northern Ontario.”

Well Hartmann, and TEA, are back on their soapbox, this time acting as a front for the public sector unions opposing Toronto’s intent to privatize parts of the city’s curb side garbage collection. TEA released a report this week called, “Look Before You Leap”, and while I admit I have not read it, the inference is that Toronto staff are not providing the correct information on the cost savings of private collection versus the current union operations.

Mr. Hartmann and the report question the numbers put forth by Geoff Rathbone, Manager of the Solid Waste Division, and infer that since Rathbone is leaving to join Progressive Waste Services (formerly BFI Canada) there may be some hanky-panky going on.

Personally I question TEA’s motives.

Since when did TEA become an economic consulting company? TEA should stick to their mandate of protecting the environment. The private sector has proven over and over again that they are capable of providing as good a service as any public sector union operation and at a lesser cost to the taxpayer.

So, let’s call a spade a spade. TEA and the Unions have gotten together on this report.

The report is not an independent analysis, it is a propaganda document released to the media to support continuing public sector garbage collection.

In my view TEA, and Mr. Hartmann, undermine their own credibility by making blatantly biased conclusions or suggestions in areas where they lack the expertise to do so.

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 1:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Citizen’s Alliance United for a Sustainable Environment (“CAUSE”) and the North Dufferin Agricultural Community Task Force (“NDACT”) have issued a news release about a company controlled by Boston-based hedge fund The Baupost Group that has submitted “Canada’s largest ever quarry application in order to extract limestone to a level 200 feet below the water table.”

According to the release, the proposed mega quarry site covers 2,316 acres of prime agricultural farmland in Dufferin County, just north of Toronto, Ontario, also known as the Headwaters area because it is the source of several major rivers including the Grand, the Nottawasaga and the Pine.

“Local citizens, community-based groups and a number of environmentally concerned NGOs are upset and angry,” the release states. “They are calling on the McGuinty government to subject this mega quarry proposal to a Provincial Environmental Assessment. An official request was submitted to Ontario Environment Minister John Wilkinson last week by the law firm of Davis LLP, solicitors for the Citizen’s Alliance United for a Sustainable Environment (“CAUSE”).”

“The mega quarry proposal would entail the ongoing management of 600 million litres of water every day, FOREVER. The blasting and extraction of limestone would destroy farms that are made up of Honeywood Silt Loam, a unique ‘high land’ horticultural soil with its own classification in the Canadian Soil Registry. It would interfere with the source water of these major river systems and could place them at risk.”

“The massive scale and potentially devastating environmental impacts associated with such a large industrial extraction operation warrant the most comprehensive environmental review available,” contends Carl Cosack, a local area farmer and Vice-Chair of the North Dufferin Agricultural Community Task Force (“NDACT”). “I am confident that most Ontarians would be shocked to learn that the government has yet to decide to subject the largest open pit mine of its kind ever contemplated in Ontario to a proper environmental review, “ he added.

The Provincial Cabinet has the option of designating this project as an undertaking subject to the more appropriate and comprehensive Environmental Assessment Act. As it stands, the mega quarry proposal requires a zoning change under the Planning Act and a licence from the Ministry of Natural Resources under the Provincial Aggregate Resources Act. “Consideration of the mega quarry proposal under these two pieces of legislation deprives the people of Ontario of a comprehensive review of the potential impacts that it could have on the environment, and instead effectively punts the approvals process to the Ontario Municipal Board,” noted Dr. Harvey Kolodny, a Director of the Citizen’s Alliance United for a Sustainable Environment (“CAUSE”). “We are calling on the Premier to exercise his good judgement to ensure that the interests of Ontarians are properly addressed under the Environmental Assessment review process” Kolodny added.

Interested parties may wish to watch the video below and forward the link to friends. Although the deadline has passed for comments, it’s never too late for additional support letters. Write to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and also the Ministry of the Environment at Queens Park, with a copy to the Premier.

Here’s the video URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgS0m2XtBbI

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 9:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It has taken over six years, but Canada finally has political stability for at least the next four years. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have been given a strong, unequivocal mandate to govern the country, and he deserved it.

Over the years the press have painted Harper as cold, unfeeling, lacking charisma and as a ruthless leader and control freak. The last time I looked around leadership was not measured by how the press painted you, but by the results you were able to achieve. Harper has been an excellent Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for Canada during some turbulent times, especially as we experienced the world-wide economic crash.

A CEO’s first responsibility is to ensure their company responds to the challenges it faces, and Harper has done that. Yes, he has kept control of his agenda. Yes, he has ensured that his Ministers stay on his agenda and yes, he played politics when he had to. Every successful CEO has had the courage and vision to do just that and it is not always popular with all people.

The bottom line is that Canadians have finally recognized that Harper has done an excellent job, and that the options for alternative leadership were not up to the challenge. The political landscape will change with a majority government; specific priorities of the Conservatives will become reality. Many won’t like it but, in my view, it will be superior to the political posturing we have seen over the past six years. Go to it Mr. Harper !!!

On top of that, on Monday night, we saw political history made in Canada. Quebec has totally rejected the Bloc. I personally spent years ski racing and coaching in Quebec and, at one point, the skiers from North-Western Quebec were part of my ski team in Northern Ontario. Quebec, with its history and culture, are integral to Canada. But the Bloc, with its separatist agenda, has finally run its course.

On the Liberal side we again watched history being made. The Liberal Party of Canada has never been reduced to a third party in the House of Commons. Three leaders, three failures and now their day is done and, I suggest, it will be a long road back. Michael Ignatieff may complain about the Conservative attack ads but, in reality, he just wasn’t up to the job, and the voters knew it. Leadership is critical and the Liberals are now finding themselves in the wilderness. Maybe we will get Bob Rae, a recycled NDP turned Liberal. (Harper’s biggest wish)

The beneficiary is my friend (tongue-in-cheek – read my book TRASHED) Jack Layton. Much will be made of the NDP breakthrough. In my view, Jack Layton was just in the right place at the right time. It happens. The Bloc collapsed, the Liberals self destructed and Jack was the beneficiary.

I will, as I have before, give Mr. Layton credit. He is a media master and a great talker. However, a long- time member of Toronto City Council told me once that, in all the years Jack Layton was on council, he would never chair a committee; he never wanted the responsibility. Jack liked to be on the sidelines and throw rocks to undermine other people’s efforts and get the headlines.

Mr. Layton is now in a position to throw a lot of rocks. It will be interesting to say the least.

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 10:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to the Ontario Waste Management Association (www.owma.org) I’m able to offer the following analysis of an emerging situation with respect to waste exports across the Ontario-Michigan border. This is a situation not only of interest to haulers in the waste industry but also to companies whose solid waste is shipped south of the border.

Here’s what OWMA wrote in a recent email to members:

It appears Canadian waste remains an issue in Michigan as we move towards Senate elections in 2012.

Despite the successful agreement between Michigan and Ontario to end the shipments of Ontario municipal wastes to Michigan by 2011, Senator Stabenow has introduced legislation called the “Stop Canadian Trash Act.” It proposes to charge a $500 fee for every truck hauling waste into the U.S. to cover the cost of inspections by Homeland Security. Stabenow argues it is an issue of national security and points out that only one percent of international waste vehicle are screened for radiation. The new law would require all vehicles be inspected and impose a $10,000 penalty each time an importer failed to provide to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection information relating to the volume and contents of each vehicle.

This proposal would likely violate the North American Free Trade Agreement and be challenged.

Senator Levin has also introduced a bill aimed at guaranteeing the efficacy of equipment and procedures employed by the Homeland Security Department's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) branch for identifying chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons in “municipal solid waste.”

The bill would require a CBP report to Congress on whether its measures are as effective as the methodologies and technologies used by the bureau to screen for those materials in other items of commerce entering the U.S. through commercial motor vehicle transport. If the Bureau of Customs cannot demonstrate that screening of municipal waste shipments is adequate, then they have six months to implement the technologies to meet adequate screening procedures. If such measures are not implemented, then the secretary of Homeland Security shall deny entry of any commercial motor vehicle carrying municipal solid waste from Canada until the secretary certifies that the methods and technology used to inspect the waste vehicles are as effective as the methods and technology used to inspect other vehicles.

We have reached out to NSWMA and to Senator Levin's Office and will keep members updated as to future developments.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 5:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)