This is a follow-up to my thoughts yesterday on the issue of “social acceptance” of major infrastructure, energy and other environmentally sensitive projects.

I talked about the “challenges” of dealing with the broader environmental movement and their impact on political decision making.

Yesterday, in the National Post, I noted that Murray Edwards, a billionaire and chairman or vice chairman of companies like Canadian Natural Resources and Ensign Energy Services Inc., was speaking at a business forum in Lake Louise, Alberta.

Interestingly, Mr. Edwards was speaking specifically on the Keystone XL pipeline debate and he said that it shows we have got to; “continue to communicate our message.”

He noted in his remarks that the strategy is shifting to direct communication with the public to win “social license” rather than just targeting the politicians in order to develop appropriate policies.

Mr. Edwards is getting it, however, making it happen and changing perceptions will take a concentrated and realistic approach.

As I mentioned, my presentation to the Canadian Power Conference (APPrO 2011) was entitled “Winning the War”, where I spoke about the realities of dealing with the broader public. The first step is realizing the importance of the broader public; the second is having the will, and the courage, to engage and confront the unrealistic opposition and stay in the game.

We are starting to understand, as I tell my audiences, that the Approval Process and The War require two different strategies. In her presentation at the APPrO Conference, Ms. Jacquie Hoornweg, VP of Public Affairs for Ontario Power Generation, stated that “Governments give permits; Communities give permission”.

We will gain the “social license” Mr. Edwards refers to by engaging the broader community with an aggressive and well delivered message.

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 1:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A few random thoughts, nothing too heavy today.

I would like to thank Jake Brooks at APPrO who helped organize the recent Canadian Power Producers Conference in Toronto. I was part of a panel examining the issues surrounding the environmental approval of major renewable energy projects.

There was very good attendance and it was interesting to hear Doris Dumais, Director of Approvals for the Ontario Ministry of Environment, discuss the government’s efforts to streamline the approval process. It’s always a challenge to satisfy all involved. Because it took us over six years to go through the Environmental Assessment process to gain approval for the Adams Mine landfill, I remain a sceptic.

I spoke on the “Social Issues” surrounding approval of any project. My presentation was called, “Winning the War”. I made it very clear that the approval process, and the social acceptance issues, were completely different in today’s world. I talked about how the convergence of outside environmental influences is fuelled by the media and how that impacts on the political process.

I stated that it is something we need to talk about going forward, as too much emphasis is put on opposition to projects. Opposition is often unfounded and can be political in nature. It can come from factions outside of the immediate area where the project is located and, in many cases, is funded by outside international interests.

My short presentation seemed well received and I had a number of people talk to me later. The message is something I intend to speak on more aggressively in 2012. Companies, executives, and anyone starting the approval process on any project today faces the same problems and, in my view, needs to understand what is really going to happen and have a game plan in place.

The best example today of the convergence of politics, the media and environmentalists is the Keystone XL pipeline. Politics won!! President Obama ducked and, with an election in the USA coming in 2012, he deferred approval. But TransCanada and the State of Nebraska quickly came to an agreement to study a re-routeing of the pipeline. It’s not over yet and I still believe, while it is costing TransCanada millions more than projected, the project will get approved.

Next week is December; I will have to work on my 2011 wrap up thoughts.

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

Posted by Gordon McGuinty at 12:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

If it was ever time to shut down Canada’s asbestos industry, that time is now. Why? Because the industry has suspended production anyway. This may be temporary, but it needn’t be. I’ve copied an article below from the Canadian Press about the production suspension, so scroll down.

Our federal government has defended the export of this dangerous material for a long time, creating a Chrysotile Institute to tout the virtues and safety of the material, and opposing as simple a thing as safety-labeling of the product. The federal government and the local industry in Quebec continue to push the idea that the material is safe when mixed with concrete – which it may be, except one has to ask, “Is it safe when that concrete deteriorates or is demolished?” as it eventually certainly will. Industry defenders also maintain that asbestos is safe “when handled properly”; this is a farce, of course, because much of it is exported to countries that lack health & safety regulations and environmental laws, or any enforcement or oversight of these.

There’s just no way to ensure that the material is handled safely once it enters a marketplace like that of China or India or elsewhere. And, again, our government has fought any requirement to even attach warning labels to asbestos shipments, encouraging the treatment of the material by importers as benign.

Anyway, here’s the CP article:

After 130 years, Canadian asbestos production quietly suspended

by Andy Blatchford, The Canadian Press

Friday, October 7, 2011

MONTREAL - Canada's once-mighty asbestos sector has ground to a halt for the first time in 130 years, as production of the controversial fibre has stalled in both of the country's mines.

A shutdown this month marked a historic milestone for the Canadian asbestos industry, which at one time dominated world production and led to the construction of entire towns in Canada.

Proponents of the industry insist it's way too early write the obituary on Canadian asbestos; they're hoping to start digging again as soon as the spring.

But for now, amid all the noisy political debates and a dramatic anti-asbestos news conference Thursday on Parliament Hill, Canadian production has quietly and suddenly stopped.

Work halted earlier this month at the Lac d'amiante du Canada operation in Thetford Mines, Que., which followed a production stoppage at Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, about 90 kilometres away.

The future of both mines is unclear.

Jeffrey Mine needs a bank-loan guarantee from the Quebec government before it can start digging a new underground mine. Lac d'amiante du Canada is apparently facing operational obstacles in accessing its mineral.

Canadian asbestos is expected to disappear from the international market altogether in the coming weeks, as the stockpiles at both operations dry up, says Jeffrey Mine president Bernard Coulombe.

Does the production standstill signal the end of Canada's embattled asbestos sector?

Not if you ask Coulombe.

"It's not closed... fibre is still being sold," said Coulombe, who explains that both mines are still selling small amounts from their limited inventories.

He predicts production to resume at Jeffrey in the spring — once the loan-guarantee is secured.

The production shutdown is the latest dip for an industry that has long been a shadow of its former self.

Canada gained a reputation as the world's top producer of a once-valuable global commodity that was hailed as the "magic mineral" for its fireproofing and insulating characteristics.

Canadian asbestos represented 85 per cent of world production in the early 1900s and the country's annual production peaked at 1.69 million metric tons in 1973, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The resource was so valuable that the U.S. military drew up plans during the 1930s to enter Quebec and defend the mines if Canada ever fell under German control, said a researcher who's studied the history of Quebec asbestos.

Jessica Van Horssen also recalled how Nazi leader Adolf Hitler bought Canadian asbestos up until the Second World War for fireproof building material, and how Winston Churchill's bunker on Downing Street was also made of asbestos cement.

"It was also something that made the world safe and we wanted to be safe, especially during war time. It was a real comfort that things had asbestos in them," said Van Horssen, a post-doctoral student from McGill University.

But the industry began its steady decline in the 1970s as science started linking asbestos exposure to serious health problems, such as lung disease and cancer.

Canada produced around five per cent of the world supply in 2010 and just 100,000 metric tons, the USGS says.

But Coulombe insists the international market for chrysotile — the type of asbestos mined in Canada — remains strong, which is great for business and the industry's future. The problem is, it also means the Jeffrey reserve will be bought up within a few weeks.

That prospect, he admits, has stirred up concern among his clients, who he says value Canadian chrysotile as the industry standard.

Instead, he says his customers will have to settle on lesser-quality chrysotile from places like Kazakhstan and Russia.

Coulombe, who says his mine has maintained a close working relationship with Lac d'amiante du Canada since 2008, had hoped its ally was going to pick up the slack until at least 2013.

"When one (mine) didn't have enough fibre, the other supplied it," he said.

"Our clients are a little unhappy with us because they say, 'We don't have any more comparable-standard fibre right now... we are in the hands of the Russians.' "

LAB Chrysotile, which operates Lac d'amiante du Canada, shuttered its operation indefinitely earlier this month. Last summer, company president Simon Dupere blamed its problem on internal challenges, including labour, production and development issues.

The company is also hoping to get permission from the provincial government to dig into a deposit under a highway in its central Quebec region.

Dupere did not return calls by The Canadian Press.

But Coulombe, and a published report, have said LAB Chrysotile's challenges are due to a massive rock slide that cut off access to the mine's economically viable chrysotile.

"They tried to remove it, more of it fell," Coulombe said of fallen rocks.

"That's why they had to stop operating because they spent and spent (money) and there's no mineral to sell."

But the future is bright for Jeffrey Mine, he says.

Coulombe's so confident in its potential that 25 workers have been busy preparing the new subterranean section, so it will be ready to open by the summer — as long as it gets support from Quebec.

Coulombe says he will only have enough money to open the underground mine if he secures a $58-million bank-loan guarantee from the Quebec government.

Once that project gets underway, he predicts Jeffrey can produce asbestos for another 25, or even 50, years.

The sector will have to continue fending off a growing group of international critics — made up of health experts and activists.

They want politicians to pemanently close the Canadian industry, which ships the bulk of its asbestos to poorer countries where they argue safety standards are too weak.

Some of those activists held a dramatic news conference Thursday on Parliament Hill. They described the impact that exposure to asbestos has had on Canadians and their families.

Eleven-year-old Cavanagh Matmor tearfully recounted how she watched her grandmother gasping for air on her deathbed.

Her grandfather had worked in a Toronto factory with asbestos from the Jeffrey Mine, and her grandmother had become ill from exposure to the fibres her husband brought into the house.

"I wonder (if) it doesn't make them feel bad inside, because they don't know how it feels, they don't know how it feels to have a grandmother and a grandfather die of asbestos," Matmor said.

"They just don't listen to others.

"They just decide to continue, and it breaks my heart. It breaks my heart knowing that they're going to continue doing that and that people in other countries will have to go through the same thing."

Matmor and her family are calling on the Charest government to reject the loan to keep the Jeffrey mine afloat — and to shut down the industry for good.

But Coulombe, like other industry supporters, insists Canadian asbestos is no longer handled in a careless manner.

He said it's perfectly safe when the mineral's tiny fibres are bonded in products like cement.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 11:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The relationship may seem obscure between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the decision in November by the US State Department to delay approval of the Keystone Pipeline project that would pump Canadian oil sands crude as far south as Texas, but a connection exists; oil and gas companies (and all industry) should pay attention.

The Occupy movement has drawn its first significant blood.

Let’s start with the Occupy movement, which spread from Wall Street, New York to hundreds of towns and cities across North America and beyond this fall. Opinions about the right of protesters to camp in city parks is just a distraction from some pretty serious issues to which the so-called “ninety-nine percenters” are drawing attention.

Yes, I know it’s easy to ambush certain non-media-savvy picketers and record them making less-than-coherent statements, then use that to claim, as some media are doing, “Look, these people are idiots!”

But some very articulate voices are emerging. If you don’t know about them, read this article from Yes Magazine:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/why-were-not-afraid

And (especially) watch the first video clip from this film, which may be the most articulate explanation of what the Occupy movement is all about yet:

http://occupylove.org/

My own view of it is thus.

Over the past quarter century people have been told prosperity would come from the removal of trade tariffs, globalization of the economy and deregulation of capital markets. Unfortunately the free-trading dream turned into a nightmare for many as international companies and banks gamed the system to the advantage of a limited number of insiders; a new billionaire plutocracy emerged.

The middle class was gutted as well-paying skilled jobs in the North American manufacturing sector were exported to the developing world. Middle America became a “rust belt” of abandoned factories as companies off-shored production to places where environment and health and safety laws are virtually unknown.

Ironically, unemployed or under-employed North Americans now buy many goods from Walmart manufactured in slave labor conditions in China that used to be produced locally.

And it’s a nightmare in those countries, too. Before he died Steve Jobs was made aware of the appalling conditions in the factory in China that makes iPhones. I don’t know if that awareness led to changes, but it was a grim story. Workers sign away their rights to any constitutional freedoms when they agree to work in the plant, and then spend long hours working under the supervision of armed guards, allowed to talk to no one. The plant is really more like a concentration camp where workers sleep in barracks; the situation only came to the attention of the West when it emerged that depressed workers routinely climb to the top of the building and jump to their deaths.

While North American manufacturers joined the race to the bottom, banks and financial service companies successfully lobbied for deregulation, then turned the investment market into a rigged casino. Thanks to documentaries like Inside Job, most of us are now familiar with the details of the subprime mortgage securities fraud and subsequent 2008 housing collapse which wiped out billions in investments. Derivatives known as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps impoverished the middle class while executives at Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase made millions, even betting against the very investments they were selling to their own customers.

Though these companies are now paying hundreds of millions of dollars in “no contest” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fines, the deals result in no jail terms for the offenders, and the fines are chump change to Wall Street banks. Some of the subprime mortgage disaster’s culprits maintained secure jobs even in the supposedly reformist Obama administration, most conspicuously Ben Bernanke who was reappointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States.

Finally, people had had enough and took to the streets: a movement was born.

Sometimes timing is everything.

In the very midst of the Occupy protests the highly politicized decision loomed over the fate of TransCanada Pipelines’ proposed Keystone Pipeline System, which would transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta to refineries in Illinois, a distribution hub in Oklahoma, and refineries along the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Keystone has faced lawsuits from oil refineries and criticism from environmentalists and some members of the US Congress. The US Department of State extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest in 2010, and did so again recently during presidential election season after thousands of people demonstrated in front of the gates of the White House.

It wasn’t lost on Obama’s advisors in the White House that the demonstrators out front were close cousins to the Occupy protestors, and represent part of Obama’s (increasingly alienated) base.

The pipeline proponents’ cause wasn’t helped by media reports of bully tactics being brought to bear against landowners in the pipeline’s path, including threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land even before the controversial project has received federal approval. (As of mid-October the company had 34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas and 22 in South Dakota. Some of the landowners gave testimony before for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May 2011.)

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stated that because of the US dithering, Canada will start talking to other potential customers of oil sands crude, notably China and other Asian countries. The Keystone proponents, meanwhile, are considering building the first phase of the project, and changing its route to dampen the controversy.

In the end, whatever happens to the Occupy protesters’ camps or whatever new tactics they espouse, their message is filtering upwards and we can expect a role-back of the deregulation that occurred from the 1980s until recently. And with this tide will come much greater cynicism against multinational corporations and claims that their projects are in the public interest. Many vote-seeking politicians will realign themselves with the skeptical public against the large companies as word spreads that citizens are putting the Main Street back in Wall Street.

This is a tidal change that must be taken seriously. Woe betide the company that ignores the retreating water and those foaming wave crests on the horizon.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 8:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thought readers might enjoy learning about a new app available for smart phones like the iPhone; it’s a game that increases awareness about recycling, and might be a good app to share with various people, especially school-age kids.

Here’s the release:

Plastics Recycling? There's an App for That

Plastics Make it Possible® Launches the “Bin It!” App That Aims to Make Plastics Recycling an Obsession

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 14, 2011) – A new app hopes to create an obsession out of tossing plastic packaging into virtual—and real world—recycling bins.

To encourage more plastics recycling, Plastics Make it Possible, an initiative sponsored by the plastics industries of the American Chemistry Council, has launched Bin It!, a fun and addictive new game that actually challenges people to recycle. Bin It! players toss plastic bottles into various recycling bins in the face of distracting animals, flashing cameras and tricky breezes. The game then converts the player’s successful tosses into the number of recycled t-shirts, sweaters and sleeping bags that can be made from recycled plastics.

The Bin It! app was launched to coincide with America Recycles Day on November 15, the only nationally recognized day dedicated to promoting recycling in the United States.

“While the Bin It! player aims to toss plastic bottles into recycling bins, our aim is to get everybody hooked on plastics recycling,” said Steve Russell, Vice President, Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council. “We’re always looking for creative ways to increase recycling awareness and participation, not only on America Recycles Day but every day. We hope people play Bin It! and then remember to “bin it” at home, on the road, at the office, at ball games...everywhere.”

Ninety-four percent of Americans have access to a plastics recycling program. While the Bin It! app uses plastic bottles, many communities also allow residents to “bin it” with other plastic containers such as yogurt cups and butter tubs. In addition, many grocery and retail chains—more than 12,000 locations nationwide—now offer bins to collect plastic bags and wraps for recycling.

Plastics recycling is on the rise, and demand for recycled plastics is growing. Bin It! is designed not only for gaming fun but to encourage more people to recycle plastic bottles, containers and bags.

The Bin It! recycling game can be downloaded on the iPhone, iPod and iPad through the iTunes App Store. For more information on plastics recycling and America Recycles Day, visit www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/recycle

About Plastics Make it Possible:

Plastics Make it Possible highlights the many ways plastics inspire innovations that improve our lives, solve big problems and help us design a safer, more promising future. This initiative is sponsored by the plastics industries of the American Chemistry Council. For more information, visit www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com, check out ourFacebook page and follow us @plasticpossible on twitter at www.twitter.com/plasticpossible

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 6:55 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The recent 2nd annual Canadian Waste Sector Symposium had an excellent slate of speakers and was a good learning opportunity.

One of the things that impressed me most was the degree to which Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has become or is in the process of becoming ingrained throughout North America. There is a whole industry that has been spawned to manage this process and certainly my own business in a small way has been a part of that.

One of the things I hear the most at public meetings related to waste management is why can’t manufacturers take more responsibly for their products and why won’t they change them to make them more recyclable. There was a time when I did not have a good answer. While not perfect and in some cases very much in development I can honestly answer these folks now and say this is happening and continues to develop.

While EPR moves the cost of managing wastes up the chain it is still we as consumers that ultimately bears these costs. However, moving it up the chain provides incentives for manufacturers to minimize their costs which leads to smarter packaging and the knowledge that this packaging as well as consumer goods such as computers, tires and paint are being managed in an environmentally responsible manner.

Another interesting comment and observation that one speaker mentioned is that waste generation continues to increase and is expected to do so for the foreseeable future.

From a packaging perspective EPR has led to examples of smaller packaging and in some cases more concentrated products (e.g. laundry detergent) resulting in less waste. EPR has not, nor was it intended to, reduce overall consumption. It is really about manufacturers taking responsibility for the wastes generated from the products they sell.

Electronic waste, described by another speaker as the fastest growing segment of consumer generated waste, continues to expand. We exchange our phones and computers every couple of years. We buy new TVs and IPads. We generate a mountain of waste in other words that is on the balance being managed.

EPR is a very compelling model for managing wastes that have been generated. A similar compelling model needs to be developed that will create a real incentive to reduce the amount of waste that is generated in the first place.

Some would argue that Zero Waste philosophy fits the bill although quite frankly its meaning is not well understood by the public and on the balance it does not appear to be a very realistic approach to meet this end.

While we can feel good about the successes of EPR we still need to tackle in a very real way our material consumption.

Ultimately we need some mechanism that that dis-incents lack of product durability and product obsolescence. This needs to be twinned with a fresh look at consumerism. Otherwise we will continue the purchasing/waste generation loop that we find ourselves in.

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

I had the opportunity to speak at last week's Canadian Waste Sector Symposium in Montreal about organic waste management in Canada. Some of the thoughts and ideas that were included in this talk are included below. http://www.canwastesectorsymposium.ca/

Organic waste processing has evolved considerably in Canada over the last twenty years, from back yard composter programs and simple open windrow composting facilities to sophisticated large in-vessel facilities and anaerobic digestion facilities.

The initial development of the industry included many small open windrow composting sites composting mostly leaf and yard wastes. With time food waste composting programs began to develop including province wide programs in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as well as programs in places like, Guelph and St. Thomas Ontario and the City of Edmonton.

The industry has grown considerably since the early 1990s. In 1998 the Composting Council of Canada (CCC) estimated there were about 350 facilities across the country. The vast majority of these facilities were open windrow facilities composting mostly leaf and yard wastes. By 2006 they estimated that there were about 225 facilities which on the surface looks like a stagnation and contraction of the industry. In fact quite the opposite happened. In 1998 about 1.3 million tonnes of organic waste was composted. By 2006 about 3.9 million tonnes was composted. There was clearly an intensification of the industry. While facility number decreased facility capacity grew by 2.5 to 3 times.

This intensification has continued since that time but not without considerable challenges.

For example much of the greater Toronto Area (GTA) embarked on source separated organics programs resulting in the development of larger composting facilities (>50,000 tonnes/year). However, not all municipalities had sufficient processing capacity and more importantly contingency processing capacity. This flooded a largely unprepared marketplace with SSO from some of these larger municipalities. In hind sight it is clear that there was insufficient processing capacity to deal with this SSO. This led to period of considerable problems in Ontario but also in Quebec primarily related to poorly operated and off site odour generating composting facilities. At one point the gap between required processing capacity and available processing capacity in Ontario was well over 100,000 tonnes/year. It appears that after a number of years that the required processing capacity is coming closer to matching that which is captured. This includes some facilities that now can process more than 100,000 tonnes/year.

Notwithstanding the challenges, primarily related to the management of odour, that the industry has faced it is clearly recognized that organic waste diversion is critical to achieve a high waste diversion rate as well as to minimize the greenhouse gas impacts created through the management of wastes.

Today the organic waste processing industry is on a cusp and changing rapidly.

Composting certainly remains the dominant way of processing organic waste. However, anaerobic digestion is making advances. This is due to a combination of factors including weariness for underperforming composting facilities, nascent financial viability helped in no small measure by various feed in tariffs and the elegant way that it can both manage organic waste and create energy from this waste. It converts the greenhouse gases into usable energy as opposed to composting which releases them as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

It will be interesting see how the management of organic wastes proceeds over the next few years and whether anaerobic digestion will, as it appears to be happening, gain a strong foothold as a viable management method.

See 2cg's new primer on the various types of organic waste management at www.2cg.ca

Posted by Paul at 3:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I just thought I’d mention to our readers that I’ll be attending the Canadian Waste & Recycling Expo in Montreal this week.

Show Hours:

Wednesday, November 9, 2011
10:00 am to 4:00 pm

Thursday, November 10, 2011
10:00 am to 4:00 pm

Location: Palais des congrès de Montréal

Solid Waste & Recycling magazine will be at booth 1300. I’ll be on the show floor most of the time though I may pop my head into some conference sessions. So look for me there or leave a note at the booth and I’ll come find you. If you leave your cell number that will help too.

See you there!

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 2:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)