This article from the Toronto Star will interest readers as it provides a neat summary of the problems facing Ontario's e-waste stewardship program. I have a few issues with this article (notably the writing style and references to "the stewardship" which I assume means the stewardship program operator OES) but the thrust of the article is accurate and, although I am not the unnamed source, I don't disagree with the comment that it smacks of Soviet-era design.

To my mind, the problem with many of these stewardship programs is not just the issue of their failing to meet targets and so on. I have a deeper concern with lack of true market competition among service providers and (more importantly) I think consumers need a real economic signal and incentive to return e-waste for recycling.

It's one thing to charge a fee on the sale of new TVs and so on, to pay for the proper recycling of old ones, but I think part of the fee should be returned to consumers when they bring their e-waste back to the store or depot. There could be a sliding scale where a larger deposit is paid for relatively new e-waste and a smaller for really old historical stuff in people's basements. There has to be something to counteract people going around and cashing in on clearing out the attic of everyone in their neighborhood.

But even that's a side story to my next idea, which is that e-waste should not just be put out with the trash. I long for the day when I can take my old cell phone, printer or laptop etc. to Future Shop or other major retailers and collect some kind of half-back deposit refund, just like one can on used beverage containers in progressive jurisdictions. Even with up-front eco fees, if there's "no value" assigned to e-waste I simply set at the curb for collection, it will never be more than trash in consumers' minds. And I don't see where the incentive is for producers to "design for the environment" (DfE). If an eco fee pays for the bulk collection and processing of used electronic goods, the system benefits "free riders" as much as companies like HP that are making large investments in greening their operations.

Here's the Toronto Star article:

Back to Ontario's electronics recycling plan coming up short

Ontario's electronics recycling plan coming up short
June 26, 2011

Moira Welsh

If you bought a TV in Ontario there’s a good chance the extra $26 you paid in eco fees was wasted.

That’s because Ontario’s struggling electronic waste recycling program — which collected $71 million from consumers last year — has not been able to recycle all of the toxic materials it promised to keep out of landfill.

Financial records show the provincially-mandated Ontario Electronic Stewardship has $20 million sitting in a bank account. Critics say that money could have recycled the equivalent of roughly 4 million laptops or 1.6 million personal computers.

Environment Minister John Wilkinson has told the stewardship to get rid of the surplus by lowering the eco fees and collecting more electronic waste to recycle, a ministry spokesperson said.

“We can’t have a $20 million surplus sitting there doing nothing,” said the ministry’s Mark Rabbior.

Another $11 million in consumer fees is sitting in a reserve fund.

Eco fees are politically toxic for a Liberal government in the months leading to the Oct. 6 election.

Last summer, the government endured public rage — initiated by opposition parties — when fees on household hazardous waste, like bleach, were added at the cash register on July 1, the same day the HST kicked in.

This year, consumers will see minor decreases in electronic eco fees on Aug. 1, to cut part of the $20 million surplus.

As chair of the stewardship’s board, Sony Canada’s Nick Aubry worries that a focus on eco-fees will put the program at risk because “the silly season is upon us.

“My fear now as we are coming into the political season is that the program could be a victim of politics,” Aubry said.

The stewardship is a private organization funded by manufacturers and retailers of electronics, including Sony, Dell and Best Buy. The companies are supposed to pay for the recycling of the goods they sell, but they pass on those extra costs to the consumer buying the products. These companies set the eco-fee rates through the stewardship.

Eco-fees currently range from $26.25 for televisions to $12.25 for computer monitors. As of Aug. 1, those fees will drop to $25 and $11 respectively.

Consumers are invited to drop off electronics at municipal depots or in some cities, electronics can be left curbside on garbage day to be collected by a special truck (it started in Toronto last fall). The stewardship then divides the electronics among a group of approved recyclers.

Carol Hochu, executive director of the stewardship, said the $20 million surplus will be eaten up by the drop in eco fees or will be spent on publicity for the program. Last year the OES spent $8.6 million on promotion and education.

Hochu predicted the program will run a deficit next year. She said she could not predict whether eco fees will rise again.

“That is a bit speculative at this point, to be totally honest, that is a ‘what if’ scenario,” she said.

Hochu said the stewardship follows a “process and methodology” for fee setting. In its most recent annual report, the organization said it wanted to keep the prices of eco fees intact until at least 2012.

But April 28 minutes from the organization that oversees the stewardship, state that “MOE senior staff had met with (the stewardship) earlier to work out the approach to reducing fees.”

These new lower fees were quickly pushed through the Waste Diversion Ontario meeting. They will appear on store receipts by Aug. 1.

Some board members voted against the new fees saying the plan was rushed.

Jo-Anne St. Godard, of the Recycling Council of Ontario, said there were too many unanswered questions — especially on the program’s ability to increase its lagging collection rates if eco fees were lowered.

“I was looking for the business case,” St. Godard said. “What was the rationale behind the fees that went down? Does it mean you are collecting too many fees and it is time to reduce that? Or, does it mean you are reducing diversion?”

More than 100,000 tonnes of old electronics are available for recycling in Ontario households and workplaces.

Since it began in April 2009, the stewardship has repeatedly missed its collection targets for electronics, harmful to the environment because they contain materials like mercury, cadmium or beryllium.

The first-year target was 42,000 tonnes but the program only collected 17,000 tonnes. The second-year target was lowered to 33,000 tonnes and the stewardship collected 29,000.

Stewardship chair Aubry defended the program, saying it had growing pains but is constantly improving. He said its original collection targets were a miscalculation and were set too high.

“Our crystal ball didn’t work very well,” he said.

Critics say the program was flawed from the start. They take issue with a system that uses a small number of recycling companies, with each given a quota of materials to recycle. An ambitious recycler that holds recycling drives to bring in materials still must share them with its competitors.

One critic called the collection program — designed by the electronics corporations — as “Soviet Union-esque.”

More than 10 recycling companies signed on but others opted out and are selling the materials for up to five times the amount the stewardship pays. Environmentalists are concerned that shady recyclers are taking the most lucrative components and illegally dumping the rest in landfills.

Usman Valiante, an environmental business consultant, said the program should be using the money collected through eco fees to properly pay companies that want to collect and recycle electronics.

“It’s economics 101. You can put up all the advertising that you want but if you don’t have a program that gives sufficient financial incentives to collect and recycle materials, you are never going to meet your targets,” Valiante said.

Stewardship official Carol Hochu said she made tweaks to the program last fall, giving recycling companies more flexibility to collect their own electronic waste.

In the first six months, an additional 4,000 tonnes was collected as a result, Hochu said.

But in a letter to the stewardship last September, Cindy Coutts, president of SIMS Recycling in Brampton called the new program “flawed.”

Coutts said the collection program makes it cheaper for companies trying to get rid of their electronic waste deal directly with the stewardship, cutting out recyclers like SIMS.

The new system “simply perpetuates the unworkable, anti-competitive scheme that in place today,” Coutts wrote.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 6:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Cleaning up and redeveloping old industrial sites (brownfields) may not at first seem directly connected to waste management, but recycling contaminated soil is just as important a "waste management" matter as recycling aluminum cans and kitchen scraps.

I think this news item from BC neatly summarizes interesting developments in the realm of brownfields redevelopment on the west coast. My only concern is that I philosophically don't like to see taxpayers subsidize the cost of redeveloping polluted lands, and think polluters should pay. That being said, I recognize that government can act as a partner and "catalyst" for getting projects underway that can yield a net benefit. Anyway, here's the news item (and you can learn more about brownfields in our "Brownfields Marketplace" supplement to our quarterly HazMat Management magazine):

HEMMERA CONGRATULATES COMMUNITY OF SQUAMISH IN NEXT PHASE OF BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION

Vancouver, BC – June 14, 2011 – Hemmera congratulates the Squamish Oceanfront Development Corporation (SODC)’s GBA site on being one of 14 redevelopment projects accepted into the 2011 Brownfield Funding Renewal Program, administered by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Formerly used for industrial operations such as railway and logging, this site will benefit greatly from funding. This will feed into the site’s proposed renewal as a residential area as part of the SODC’s overall park, employment and residential development plan for the 59 acres of former industrial land extending from downtown Squamish and forming a peninsula fronting Howe Sound, the Mamquam Blind Channel and the Cattermole Slough.

This acceptance is an enormous opportunity for the District of Squamish. SODC Board Chair Bill McNeney enthused, “This exciting project is an important part of the redevelopment and renewal plan for the SODC lands. The SODC is grateful to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations for their significant contribution towards bringing this project into reality and initiating a key transformational step for the Community of Squamish.”

Brownfield Renewal Funding will move the environmental investigation and remediation process forward at this Site, with funding granted specifically for Stage 1 and 2 Preliminary Site Investigations and a Detailed Site Investigation. Hemmera project staff have previously worked with the SODC on different parts of these Brownfield lands, including managing the decontamination and decommissioning of a former waste water treatment plant (the ‘Blue Barn’, which received 2010 Brownfield Renewal Funding), and the application for an approval under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the development of an Oceanfront Park. “We’re thrilled that SODC received this funding. It will allow them to address more of their Brownfield areas, ultimately contributing towards the development of this unique and sustainable community” says Greg Quandt, Business Leader at Hemmera, who has facilitated work between Hemmera’s planning and management, and engineering and sciences groups, on behalf of the SODC.

The final step in the project process could include an application for a Certificate of Completion from the BC Ministry of the Environment, the awarding of which would signify that the risks associated with the site have been addressed. Once a Certificate is obtained, the site will be ready to be re-incorporated into the community of Squamish, and will help create a vibrant, sustainable, world-class “work-live-recreate” community showcasing the spirit, cultural heritage, and values of surrounding Squamish citizens.

Contact Information:

Claire Lewis, Senior Environmental Engineer
clewis@hemmera.com

About Brownfield Funding Renewal Program

Since the Brownfield Funding Renewal Program’s inception in 2007, 44 projects in 32 communities have received $3.4 million to support Brownfield redevelopment. As one of 14 successful projects in 2011, the GBA Site Renewal project has received $121,500 of funding towards the revitalization of this Brownfield, which will provide economic, environmental, and social benefits for the community of Squamish. www.sodc.ca

About Hemmera

Hemmera is a boutique environmental consulting firm that is recognized for its strong client focus, diverse expertise, and technical excellence. We act as a trusted partner to our clients, providing solutions that safeguard the environment and the community, while advancing economic opportunities. The strength of our team has made us the firm of choice for some of the largest environmental projects in Western Canada. Hemmera is headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia. www.hemmera.com

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 5:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I may have said this earlier, but with an election in Ontario within six months, we are into what I have often heard civil servants call the “silly season”. That is the lead up to an election when nothing, and I mean nothing, of any consequence gets done in government and, in many cases, politics derails years of planning and long term objectives.

Political survival during the silly season becomes the only objective for both the government and the individual MPP’s.

Nothing illustrates this more blatantly than Dalton McGuinty’s flip-flops on his energy policies. Elected with great fan-fare promising to eliminate Ontario’s coal fired plants and replace them with renewable energy sources and more environmentally acceptable gas fired power plants, McGuinty has failed and back-tracked on all fronts.

The coal fired plant closures have continually been delayed while the renewable energy file and McGuinty’s venture into wind power is in shambles. Now, for the second time, it looks like he will scrap another gas-fired power plant in the Greater Toronto Area in the face of public pressure and the upcoming election.

Early this year the government cancelled a gas-fired plant in Oakville. The facility was under construction by Trans Canada and we will probably never know the cost of that settlement. Now there is a similar situation happening in Mississauga. A building permit has been issued to Eastern Power Ltd. to build a plant after an Environmental Assessment of the project was approved in 2008, but now, with an election in the offing, the government is holding another “review”. The reality is the project is dead!

Why is this happening? Well I can tell you that it has nothing at all to do with the environment. McGuinty’s action is the result of public pressure, political cowardice and the need for political survival, nothing else.

Here is a quote in the Toronto Star by Donald Beggs, President of the Markland Wood Homeowners Association, the leader of the main opposition to the power plant, “We want action now. We will not allow them to wait till November (after October’s election) to tell us this project is going forward. Talk is cheap. All the Liberal Candidates in this area will be watched on this issue to see if we get real action before the election”

You can bet your last dollar that the opposition will get the action they want. It will be another cancelled project in Ontario, another waste of millions of dollars and a further derailment of any comprehensive energy policy for Ontario.

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)

Some folks migh tbe surprised to learn that Texas is among the leading jurisdictions in the United States moving forward with product stewardship, but when you think of the state's free market spirit, it's perhaps not suprising that Texans are beginning to understand the need to remove subsidies to waste and recycling and make producers responsible for the end-of-life management of products and packaging. In that regard, the following news item is of interest:

Texas Finally Has Statewide Television TakeBack Recycling Law

Recycling advocates and businesses celebrate as Governor Perry signs the “TV TakeBack” bill into law

Austin, TX – Environmentalists, local government leaders and recycling businesses have praised Texas legislators for passing a bill that will! have TV manufacturers take back and recycle obsolete televisions, keeping toxic materials such as lead and mercury out of Texas landfills and water sources. Governor Rick Perry signed Senate Bill 329 into law—unlike in 2009, when Gov. Perry vetoed a similar bill. Advocates count this as one of the rare environmental victories during the 2011 Texas Legislative Session.

“We applaud Governor Perry for signing the TV TakeBack Recycling bill into law,” said Robin Schneider, Executive Director of Texas Campaign for the Environment. “This bill is the long-awaited companion to the Computer Takeback Law that Governor Perry signed in 2007.
TV takeback in Texas is long overdue, so this law is a crucial step toward bringing free and convenient recycling to all Texans. That said, there’s still work to be done!”

An estimated 2 5 million televisions are disposed each year in the US. Old-style cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions contain several pounds of lead and most new flat-screen TVs contain mercury bulbs. Typically, less than one in every five old TVs is recycled. Many communities across Texas routinely must clean up illegal dumps of old electronics. The new law will extend recycling opportunities to more Texans.

“This law will help every county in the State of Texas. This is just the right thing to do,” said Fayette County Judge Ed Janecka. “Work crews will no longer have to pick up electronics off of roadsides and creek beds. We thank the Governor and the State Legislature for listening to Texas businesses, retailers, recyclers and residents. We also appreciate the hard work and dedication put forth by Texas Campaign for the Environment in its pursuit to better recycling in our state.”

SB 329, sponsored by Senator Kirk Watson (D-Austin) and Representative Warren Chisum (R-Pampa), requires manufacturers selling TVs in Texas to offer free, convenient recycling programs for Texas residents. Industry support was a key factor in the bill’s passage. The Consumer Electronics Association, which represents more than 2,000 electronics companies, supported the bill—marking the first time this trade association has supported any state producer takeback recycling law. Other business groups, local governments, recycling businesses and faith-based organizations also backed the bill.

Twenty-four other states have passed similar laws for electronics recycling, 20 of which cover computers and TVs. Over the next 10 months, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will design the rules to implement and enforce the new law.

“With this market-based solution, manufacturers in the television industry will improve their corporate responsibility,” said Mike Buckles, head of TechnoCycle, an electronics recycling firmin Houston. “TechnoCycle and other recycling businesses will work closely with electronics companies, Texas lawmakers and the state environmental agency to make sure this law gets the results Texas needs.”

Advocates say the law will help the economy as well as the environment, and that it will save taxpayer money.

"I am extremely pleased that our lawmakers recognized the need to add television recycling as a companion law along with the existing computer takeback law," said Kim Mote, chair of the Texas Product Stewardship Council and the Solid Waste Manager for the City of Fort Worth. "When properly implemented, these two laws will take a difficult-to-handle solid waste burden off of our local governments in Texas. What is just as gratifying is to see that the bill had TV manu! facturer support in its passage," he concluded.

“Producer takeback recycling creates jobs in the recycling industry, saves local tax dollars and clean up the air, land and water in Texas,” said Stacy Guidry, Austin Program Director for Texas Campaign for the Environment. “Cities and counties in Texas can’t afford to spend tax dollars on recycling obsolete electronics. We’re glad more manufacturers will be taking responsibility for the entire life-cycle of products in our state.”

Texas Campaign for the Environment (TCE) is a statewide grassroots organization focused on recycling and trash issues. In 2002, TCE joined the effort to make electronics companies responsible for the life-cycle of their products. TCE organizes Texans door-to-door from offices in Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 1:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)