What if?Posted by Usman Valiante at 02:50 AM
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.
Comments
As someone who has been researching beverage container recovery systems, costs and performance in Canada for nearly eight years, I am once again amazed with Coke's recent announcement.
How stupid does Coke think the public is, let alone Quebec’s Provincial government?
Coke has decided to remove non-carbonated bottles and cans from the deposit system (a voluntary program) and have them recovered through the municipal curbside system. They say, "We will continue to work closely with the industry, our customers, the government and the community to continue to find innovative solutions to sustain our environment."
What a joke. These containers will experience a SIGNIFICANT decline in their recovery rates. We have countless case studies in Canada (especially in Ontario with its very mature blue box program) to prove that this will happen. What will it all mean? higher disposal costs to municipalities, higher recycling costs to municipalities and now packaging brandowners in Quebec, lost valuable aluminum and PET that recycling industries are DESPERATE for (just ask them), and a higher burden on the environment in terms of new energy requirements and new associated pollution as there will be less recycling and therefore more primary resource extraction.
Truth is, this decision will actually end-up costing Coke a bundle in the short term. Contamination costs (grocers throwing non-carbonated containers in with the carb containers will cost an extra 7-cents for each unit that ends up in the deposit return system (which was the original reason that Coke voluntarily put them in).
So what is real behind coke decision? It simple. This is all about eroding the deposit return program on carbonated beverages, so that in December 2006 when the program agreement is up for renewal they will have many more reasons for the government as to why the whole program should be scrapped.
Coke’s web site states: “The pursuit of environmental excellence is a priority of the Coca Cola system” Hmmm?
And now a challenge: let's have a public debate on this issue - no rhetoric, just fact.
Bring on your smartest lobby group - name the time and place.
Clarissa Morawski (for qualifications - Google me.)
Posted by: Clarissa Morawski | February 3, 2006 12:13 PM
Yesterday, Sustainable Development Minister Thomas Mulcair’s announce that following a meeting with Coke rep, Coca-Cola will reintroduce the deposit system for some non-carbonated drink!...
Québec, le lundi 6 février 2006 – À la suite d’une rencontre avec les représentants de la compagnie Coca-Cola, le ministre du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs et leader adjoint du gouvernement, M. Thomas J. Mulcair, est heureux d’annoncer que la compagnie Coca-Cola a décidé de réintroduire la consigne sur ses contenants de boissons à remplissage unique non gazeuses, une sage décision pour la protection de l’environnement.
« Il est essentiel de diminuer de façon importante l’élimination des contenants à remplissage unique de boissons et, pour ce faire, d’en augmenter la récupération et le recyclage, dans une perspective de protection de l’environnement et de préservation des ressources. La décision de l’entreprise Coca-Cola témoigne de son souci manifeste à cet égard », a déclaré le ministre.
On se souviendra que la compagnie avait annoncé la semaine dernière sa décision de cesser d’appliquer une consigne volontaire sur certains contenants de boissons non gazeuses à remplissage unique (jus et thé glacé). Ces produits, qui n’étaient pas assujettis à la Loi sur la vente et la distribution de bière et de boissons gazeuses, étaient consignés volontairement depuis 2002. Les consommateurs pourront donc continuer leurs bonnes habitudes de rapporter ces contenants chez les marchands, grâce à cette décision de Coca-Cola.
Le ministre précise par ailleurs que des démarches entre RECYC-QUÉBEC et l’industrie des boissons ont cours actuellement afin de trouver une solution durable à l’élimination des contenants à remplissage unique, dont on peut prolonger la vie utile par la récupération et le recyclage.
« Puisque les habitudes des consommateurs ont évolué nous devons adapter nos objectifs et nos moyens afin qu’il soit simple pour eux de recycler tous les contenants, pas uniquement ceux de bière et de boisson gazeuse. Profitons donc du débat public amorcé pour mobiliser tous les acteurs et travailler ensemble pour identifier les meilleurs moyens pour atteindre nos objectifs de récupération », a ajouté le ministre Mulcair.
De plus, depuis le mercredi 1er février 2006, une vingtaine de nouveaux contenants à remplissage unique (CRU) de boissons gazeuses, de type boisson énergisante, sont assujettis à une consigne de 5 ¢. (Base, Bawls, Dr. Brown’s, Full Throttle, Grace, Guru, Hansen Energy, Hype Energy, Hype Energy Lite, Hype Gold Energy, KMX, Monster, Red Bull, Red Rain, Red Rev, Reload, Reload Light, Rock Star, Sobe Arush). Cela représente environ 1 % du volume total des contenants consignés.
Rappelons que le taux de récupération des contenants à remplissage unique CONSIGNÉE QUÉBEC atteint actuellement près de 75 % au Québec, faisant du système de consignation un mode de récupération des plus performants.
Posted by: Mario | February 7, 2006 10:55 AM