An article appeared in the Toronto Star on the weekend entitled, Saving Energy: Maybe it's time Canada got serious on energy conservation. The article touts the energy benefits of replacing incandescent bulbs with compact florescent lights (which are 6 times as energy efficient as regular incandescent bulbs). The article also describes the technology behind the compact florescent lamps noting that they use mercury (which when ionized releases UV light which is converted to white light by the coating in the lamp).

Of course energy efficient lighting promises to relive our demand for electricity. Specifically the goal is to reduce our dependence on coal-fired electricity which releases significant amounts of mercury upon combustion.

But how ironic would it be if we reduced coal-fired generation by using fluorescent bulbs only to release mercury to environment as those bulbs are sent to landfill (or incinerated) at their end-of-life? Clearly, we need to be thinking about a closed loop recovery system now.

Well the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) is doing just that and is starting by addressing long fixture type fluorescent lamps used in the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) sector. In May of 2005, the RCO and the Grand Erie District School Board (GEDSB) in partnership with Florescent Lamp Recyclers (FLR - a recycler), participated in a pilot project to recovery and recycle spent florescent lamps. In total, 5968 lamps were collected of which 958 were recovered through random replacement methods and 5010 through retrofits. In all 18,000 mg of mercury was recovered. (To put this into perspective that is the amount of mercury that would be emitted by burning coal to generate the electricity necessary to light 67 compact fluorescent bulbs for about 115 years).

According tor Jo-Anne St. Godard, Exectuive Director of the RCO, the RCO is working to develop a provincial-wide stewardship program aimed at IC&I sector (schools, hospitals, government buildings, shopping malls, factories). RCO has received funding from the Standards Development Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Environment (which has been involved in the development and implementation of Canada-wide Standards (CWS) for mercury including mercury-containing lamps), to test the model. In addition 2 school divisions have agreed to participate in its initial rollout. RCO will be working with lamp manufacturers, distributors and the MOE to ensure environmental performance and economic efficiency.

Anybody interested in florescent lamp stewardship issues can call Jo-Anne at (416) 657-2797 Ext. 1

Permalink | Comments (0)

Page A14 in today's Globe and Mail has a story entitled, "Quebec set to probe alleged price-fixing of liquor". You can get the details from the article but in effect the allegations relate to the Quebec provincial liquor monopoly - Société Des Alcools du Québec (SAQ) encouraging European suppliers to jack up their wholesale prices to offset changes in currency values thereby protecting the SAQ's "profits" (SAQ's retail mark-ups are levied as percentage of wholesale price - the higher the wholesale price the higher the markups). As the article says this, "...artificially increased prices of imported European wines that allowed the government to pocket huge profits".

Now some cynics would argue that the SAQ's motivation for doing this is driven by a system of, "...bonuses and special deals awarded to senior executives and board members" for maximizing "profits". Others might argue that liquor board revenue maximization is aimed at staving off privatization. I disagree with both views. Rather I tend to agree with the LCBO's lobbyists (yes, crown corporations do require their own lobbyists) who assert that the motivation is borne of altruism - that is, liquor boards seek to maximize revenues with the hope of funding hospitals, MRI's and better public services in general.

And it is for this reason that I do not support a deposit-refund system for SAQ or LCBO containers. Should these agencies pick up the environmental and financial responsibilities for their packaging it could mean longer wait times in emergency rooms and perhaps even an outbreak of avian flu. In this regard it is only reasonable to support both the landfill of wine and spirits containers and liquor board price fixing as necessary means to better funded public services.

And it is not like the SAQ isn't doing its part for the environment. As of Februray 25th 2006 the SAQ will be offering reusable bags. To quote the SAQ's website,

Entirely made of cotton, this bag is designed with dividing panels to stop the bottles from colliding with one another, allowing you to safely carry up to six 750 ml bottles!

As of February 27, the bag will be sold for $2.25 and with every sale, $0.50 will be donated to the Biodiversity and Wildlife Habitat Fund, created by the Fondation de la faune du Québec in order to ensure the protection of endangered species in Quebec.

So get your sac réutilisable from the SAQ and fill it with all the foutaise you can handle.

Permalink | Comments (1)

Bill Sheehan at the Procduct Policy Institute sent me this:

SAN FRANCISCO EPR RESOLUTION
Passed Unanimously Feb 14, 2006

[Extended Producer Responsibility]

Urging San Francisco’s State delegation to support statewide efforts to hold producers responsible for product waste, starting with toxic products defined as universal waste; requesting the Department of the Environment recommend local extended producer responsibility policies as well as work with necessary agencies to develop producer responsibility language for inclusion in City contracts.

WHEREAS, Manufactured goods and packaging constitute about seventy-five percent of the materials managed by the City and County of San Francisco and sent to landfill, costing San Francisco residents and businesses about $150 million a year in refuse rates plus millions more in taxes to manage; and

WHEREAS, On February 8, 2006, a state law takes effect that makes it illegal to throw in the garbage items defined as “universal waste,” which includes household batteries, fluorescent bulbs or tubes, thermostats, other items that contain mercury, as well as electronic devices including VCRs, microwaves, cellular phones, cordless phones, printers, and radios; and

WHEREAS, Assuming a fifty percent recovery rate, collecting and disposing of these products now banned from the trash will cost San Francisco an estimated additional $5 million each year; and

WHEREAS, When additional products are declared as hazardous by the State the burden to manage these items will fall to local jurisdictions; and

WHEREAS, There are significant environmental and human health impacts associated with household products that contain toxic ingredients, including mercury, lead, cadmium and other toxic chemicals that when disposed of improperly can contaminate water supplies; and

WHEREAS, By covering the costs of collection and disposal, local governments are subsidizing the production of waste because manufacturers know that whatever they produce the local government will foot the bill for recycling or disposal; and

WHEREAS, Extended Producer Responsibility is an environmental policy approach in which producers assume responsibility—financial and/or physical—for the management of post-consumer products, so that those who produce and use products bear the costs of recycling and proper disposal; and

WHEREAS, When brand owners are responsible for ensuring their products are recycled responsibly, and when health and environmental costs are included in the product price, there is a strong incentive to design and purchase goods that are more durable, easier to recycle, and less toxic; and

WHEREAS, It is timely to develop and support extended producer responsibility legislation to address the universal waste sector of the waste stream first in response to the state ban on universal waste from household disposal; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges our representatives in Sacramento to pursue statewide extended producer responsibility legislation targeted at universal waste that will give incentives for the redesign of products to make them less toxic, and shift the cost for recycling and proper disposal of products from the local government to the producer and distributor of the product; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Department of the Environment develop producer responsibility policies such as leasing products rather than purchasing them, and requiring the manufacturers of products sold to City departments to offer less toxic alternatives, and to take responsibility for collecting and recycling their products at the end of their useful life; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City and County of San Francisco will continue to support extended producer responsibility initiatives and statewide legislation beyond universal waste to cover areas including other hazardous products, bulky packaging, and items like plastics and multi-material products that are difficult to recycle.

Bill. A question. Do state legislators listen to municipalities in California?

The resolution and related documents are posted under “Local Government EPR” at http://www.productpolicy.org/resources/index.html

Permalink | Comments (1)

Policy debates on the environment are often hotly contested as the outcomes very often involve economic "winners" and "losers". Invariably when one party or another doesn't have a leg to stand on in support of its position it resorts to bullshit.

But what is bullshit really? And before you start chuckling let me say that any of you who think this question is a trivial one better think again. We live in a world where armies mobilize and people die as a result of wars predicated on bullshit. The decisions we make that affect our planet's future are influenced by bullshit. The ability to cut through bullshit is critical to the workings of a democratic society. So, it isn't a trival question at all.

And so I am pleased that Professor Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University has come along with a piece entitled On bullshit which tries to address the fact that, "...we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves.".

Just as a teaser is this favoured quote of mine, "What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affaris. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not decieve us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensibly distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to."

The book is a must read. It is a sobering reminder that the only way ahead for us is to seek knowledge and question and test everything that is put before us.

The full cite:

FrankFurt, Harry G., 2005. On Bullshit. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, USA. ISBN 0-691-12294-6

Also check out: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/video/frankfurt/

Permalink | Comments (1)

Obviously it is one thing for Quebec Environment Minister Mulclair to strong-arm Coca Cola to back track on dissolving its "voluntary" deposit-refund system for non-carbonated drinks but quite another to get the provincial liquor monopoly to implement a deposit-refund system.

Good on Recyc-Québec for undertaking a study that looks at the issue...

LA PRESSE, MONTREAL, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

110 MILLION BOTTLES GO TO THE DUMP EVERY YEAR TIME FOR A DEPOSIT ON SAQ PRODUCTS?
FRANÇOIS CARDINAL

Although the vast majority of wine bottles sold in Quebec end up in the trash, the Société des alcohols stubbornly refuses to charge a deposit on its products. As for the Government, it has always refused to compel the State-owned corporation… simply because it pays a lot of money to Recyc-Québec, La Presse has learned.

Yet, according to a confidential report produced by Recyc-Québec last September, extending deposits to wine and liquor bottles would allow it to recover over 70% of these glass containers “at the outset”.

At present, only 25% of the products sold by the SAQ are recovered.

Since the SAQ sells nearly 147 million bottles a year, this means that about 110 million of them end up in a landfill site. With a deposit, this number would decrease to 44 million.

Why, in this case, doesn’t the Government charge a deposit on wine bottles? “Historically, the SAQ has not been subject to the deposit because it makes a large contribution to the “collecte sélective” (the equivalent of the blue box Program), Environment Minister Thomas Mulcair said in an interview.

According to our information, the SAQ has paid Recyc-Québec $2.6 million since 2002 under two different programs. Ironically, one of these two programs ended in 2004 and the second expires this June, thus putting an end to the SAQ’s contribution. Thus, the timing is ideal to impose a deposit, Recyc-Québec believes.

While Minister Mulcair is not completely closed to the idea, he is not very enthusiastic about it either. He settled for saying: “Everything is on the table. Everything will be analyzed.”

In its report submitted to the Minister last fall, Recyc-Québec is very favourable to the idea of asking SAQ customers for a deposit so that they return a large number of the bottles purchased. This having been said, the organization acknowledges that, due to logistical difficulties, this option “cannot be adopted in the short term”. Given the potential gains for recovery in Quebec, it thus suggests that the Government conduct a feasibility study.

“The recovery rate, currently estimated at 25%, would quickly increase to high levels,” the authors of the report note, “possibly exceeding 70% due to the financial incentive related to the amount of the deposit. Indeed, in some provinces, the glass container recovery rate is over 80%.”

In Canada, all provinces have imposed deposits on wine and liquor bottles, except for Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. “Assuming a recovery rate based on the experience of Canadian provinces,” [Recyc-Québec] adds, “an additional quantity estimated at no less than 60 million wine and liquor containers would immediately shift from disposal to recycling.”

“Such a decision,” it adds, “would be likely to induce other companies marketing beverages in Quebec to participate more actively and promptly in the implementation of the “collecte sélective” (blue box Program) regulations.”

Extending the deposit to the SAQ is not a new idea. In 1992, the Environment Minister at the time had proposed to Cabinet a completely refundable deposit of 50 cents on all wine, cider and liquor containers. This initiative never materialized, particularly due to the reluctance of the main interested party.

Recyc-Québec also warns the Government of potential resistance. “Extending the deposit would arouse strong opposition from the SAQ and several government departments, especially Finance,” it points out. “The food distributors and retailers would undoubtedly object to returning these containers to their stores.”

However, Recyc-Québec maintains that this solution is possible and that a feasibility study would make it possible to determine the space requirements at the container return points, the choice of appropriate equipment and the handling to be performed by the employees.

The SAQ did not return La Presse’s call.

Permalink | Comments (0)

Ontario’s Beer Store announced the dismantling of its 79 year old voluntary deposit-refund system. What could some of the possible Ontario government responses be?

Response 1: Deer-in-the-headlight, bewildered silence. One week later mumblings about it being a Waste Diversion Ontario matter…

Response 2: Congratulations! The MOE releases a press release congratulating the president of the Beer Store for finally seeing the light and dumping its deposit-refund system and finally throwing the full 450,000 plus tonnes of beer packaging in “support” of municipal blue box programs and Michigan landfills. Thank-you for dismantling a system with an overall recovery rate of 92% for all beer containers (97% for refillable containers) in favor of Ontario’s widely touted blue box. Thank-you for the opportunity for Ontario municipalities to enjoy $30 million in new costs with 50% funding for at best 50% recovery of about 450,000 tonnes of beer packaging. Thank-you for almost 400,000 tonnes of one-way amber glass which will either head directly to landfill or take a tortuous route to landfill after being crushed, color commingled and contaminated.

Response 3: Oh yeah? If you don’t keep operating it we will force you to do so through regulation.

Well this scenario may seem far-fetched but that is exactly what happened on February 1st right next door in Quebec though not with regard to beer but to juice packaging. In a remarkably obtuse political gambit and utilizing a typical amount of bleu box flavoured pap, Coca Cola announced that by, “…removing the voluntary deposit on our aluminum juice cans and PET bottles, we are encouraging consumers to use the Collecte Sélective (analogue to Stewardship Ontario) recycling program, generating revenue for the multi-material program.”

Well there is no need to guess what Sustainable Development Minister Thomas Mulcair’s response is going to be because he was already out of the gate on February 2nd, “It's extremely difficult to understand how a serious company like Coca Cola can do something like this in 2006”, adding, “We're going to legislate if we have to. But the first thing were going to do is meet with Coca Cola to understand this gesture, which is completely against the environment”. Minister Muclair’s response came despite having just set up a 50% industry /50% municipal funding arrangement for Quebec’s blue box identical to the one we have here in Ontario.

Kudos to Minister Muclair. Not only is it refreshing to see such intestinal fortitude but it also quite refreshing to see such a speedy and unequivocal response.

Dear Minister, forgive me for using “refreshing” more than twice in the span of a few lines but I must warn you of, well, Refreshments Canada (er, Boissons rafraîchissantes). You will soon be subjected to a swarm of sugar (and aspartame) water lobbyists and blue box “funding experts” offering up visions of recycling murder and mayhem such as they do in Ontario - i.e. deposit-return systems, “…could kill Ontario’s blue box system altogether.”, and the veritable horrors of removing, “…valuable beverage container materials.”, and oh my, “…costs to consumers.”

Insofar as costs to pop consumers are concerned, so important is it to ensure the right to a $3.99 12 pack of pop that it has been written into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thankfully, Minister Muclair has invoked the "notwithstanding clause" on behalf of the environment and common sense at a refundable cost of 10 cents a bottle.

Permalink | Comments (2)