The Timmy and Tommy show
In January of 2007 the Ontario Government announced a proposed ban on burning of used oil in space heaters in Southern Ontario.
Recently opinion articles questioning the science and motives behind the ban have been appearing in small-town newspapers such as the Peterborough Examiner and Owen Sound Sun Times.
These articles are written by Dr. Timothy Ball whose byline describes him as, “chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com)…” and, “…a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg…”, while Tom Harris is described as, “…an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and NRSP executive director.”
Tim and Tom present themselves as highly qualified and seemingly disinterested individuals who, judging by the name of their organization – the Natural Resources Stewardship Project – might even be taken as ardent environmental advocates lobbying out of an altruistic concern for the public interest.
Moreover on face value their query to the Minister of the Environment seems reasonable. The say, “…we asked Broten to explain how she came to her decision…” adding, “…One would expect that, if her decision was based on a proper environmental analysis, she would readily disclose the information we requested.”
But all is not as it seems.
It is one thing to question the scientific basis for a policy decision but it is quite another to advocate for the alternative proposed to be banned. In this light let’s look at what Tim and Tom said about used oil space heaters in the Owen Sound Sun Times article, “Used oil heaters have been successfully operating in the province for at least 15 years. Hundreds of small businesses in Ontario, at least 20 in Owen Sound alone - car dealerships, bus fleets, farm equipment dealers, etc. - have invested in these systems to carefully dispose of waste oil while reducing space heating costs. Strict emission regulations apply and we know of no evidence that these regulations are not being followed.”
By what evidence have Tim and Tom come to the unequivocal conclusion that used oil furnaces have been operating, “successfully” (whatever that means) and “carefully” - did they undertake an evaluation of the 800 or so facilities operating across Ontario? Did the Ministry of Environment give them this information? If not then what supports this assertion? And where did Tim and Tom get the notion that, “strict emissions regulations” apply to used oil furnaces?
Well gents, if questions are good for the Minister of Environment then surely you’ll be happy to field some questions of your own no?
And Messrs. Tim and Tom, just as an inconvenient FYI, used oil furnaces are not regulated by the emissions they discharge – there are no “strict emissions regulations” on used oil furnaces per se - but by the concentrations of heavy metals and toxics in the used oil. By current Ontario standards its okay to burn used oil without pollution controls that, “contains not more than 5 milligrams per kilogram arsenic, not more than 2 milligrams per kilogram cadmium, not more than 10 milligrams per kilogram chromium, not more than 50 milligrams per kilogram lead, not more than 2 milligrams per kilogram PCBs…and not more than 1,500 milligrams per kilogram total halogens.”
It doesn’t take a “climatology professor” from the University of Winnipeg to know that without any pollution controls whatsoever what goes into a used oil furnace has to come out into the air – put lead into a used oil furnace and out of the stack comes most of the lead you put in (with the rest ending up as residue in the furnace). If one burns thousands of liters of used oil every winter one ends up putting hundreds of grams of heavy metals (and other carcinogens and toxins) into the local air-shed (largely in urban areas where most of these units operate). That is why both the medical officers of health for the City of Toronto and Peel Region support the ban on burning used oil for space heating.
But we are not operating in the realm of fact and rationality here but in the realm of propaganda – and these articles are brilliant propaganda. That is that, “Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can present facts but do so selectively, produce deliberately misleading information, or load messages, whether essentially truthful or not, with emotional meaning in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the message that is being presented.”
What better way to undermine the Government and its policy agenda than by questioning its science, casting doubt and fomenting fear through economic alarmism? Does this sound familiar? Hasn’t this been the same tactic used to delay action on climate change?
Well of course it has and Tim and Tom are no neophytes in this regard.
Until late October 2006 Tom was listed as a Director of Operations of the Ottawa office of the High Park Group (HPG), a Canadian public relations and lobbying firm.
Additionally, SourceWatch.org reports that the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), “…is led by Executive Director, Tom Harris, who, in November 2002, while in the employ of the PR firm APCO Worldwide, organized a press conference titled ‘International Climate Experts Speak Out Against Climate Change Myths’. The press conference was sponsored by Talisman Energy Inc. and Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil's Canadian subsidiary). Many of the same scientists and advisors now linked to the NRSP were present, including Tim Ball.”
For more information on the Natural Resources Stewardship Project read, “NRSP Controlled by Energy Lobbyists” at desmogblog.com or if you have time watch The Fifth Estate's THE DENIAL MACHINE
Oh and by the way, I am a policy analyst to Safety-Kleen Canada Inc. - the oil re-refiner that according to Tim and Tom, “…stands to significantly increase their business as a result of her decision.” If Safety-Kleen was 100% successful in competing to recover all this newly available used oil its Ontario collections might increase by about 10% and if not then the used oil no longer burned in used oil furnaces in Ontario will end up being collected by its competitors and shipped out of province to be burned as waste derived fuel (half of the used oil generated in the province annually is shipped primarily to the U.S. to be burned).
Now you know who I am and why I have an interest in the issue. As for Tim and Tom you’ll have to ask them about what is motivating them to take the time to write their stories.
I have reproduced Tim and Tom’s stories as they appeared in the Owen Sound Sun Times and Peterborough Examiner on May 17th and June 9th 2007 below.
Let's see green proof
Peterborough Examiner (On)
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Page: A4
Section: Opinion
Byline: TOM HARRIS; TIM BALL
Prove it! That's how Canadians must start responding every time governments impose restrictions to our lifestyle to supposedly "save the planet. " If politicians can't validate their schemes with comprehensive and unbiased scientific studies then they should get out of the way and stop telling us how to live our lives.
Take the recently announced incandescent light bulb ban. The federal government's "Action on Climate Change and Air Pollution" boasts that the ban "will give Canadian consumers real opportunity both to save money on energy and to help clean up our environment."
Prove it! Show us the results of comprehensive life cycle environmental analyses that demonstrate that the energy savings from a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) more than compensates for its increased manufacturing and mercury disposal impacts. Prove to us that the loss of convenience and light quality of the tried and true incandescent bulbs is indeed off-set by a significant net environmental benefit. Otherwise, expect little co-operation from the public and a profitable black market in light bulbs.
The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) has asked Environment Minister John Baird to describe how he decided to ban incandescent light bulbs. Unless a science-based decision process is seen to have been followed, many will conclude that the ban is purely political, designed to look good in the press, appease environmental extremists, while trumping the NDP who had a private members bill banning incandescents in the works.
Last month NRSP asked Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten a similar question about her plans to ban used oil heating in the province. For many years, hundreds of Ontario car dealerships, garages, farm equipment dealers, etc. have burned used oil from various sources to reduce heating costs. Strict emission regulations apply to these heaters and we know of no evidence that these regulations are not being adhered to. Yet Broten decided to ban the heaters in favour of the complex process of collecting and re-refining the used oil so that a portion of it may be re-used.
NRSP's interest in the issue was aroused because Broten focused strongly on the supposed contribution her ban would make towards the impossible goal of "stopping climate change." We wondered: under the guise of reducing carbon dioxide, the non-polluting gas of concern in most climate change plans, was the used oil heating ban actually going to result in an increase in real pollution that causes acid rain and smog, and fouls our ground water? Only a comprehensive life cycle environmental impact assessment of the options for handling used oil would reveal the answer.
Broten announced the ban from the headquarters of the largest used oil re- refiner, a company that stands to gain significantly from her decision. Later that same day, the company announced an expansion to its facility. Taxpayers are justified to ask if the ban is really about protecting the environment at all. And if it is, would it offset the financial loss suffered by business owners who had already invested in used oil furnaces? We asked the minister to "prove it".
Nearly four weeks after our request that Broten reveal how she concluded that banning used oil heating would be environmentally beneficial, she has yet to respond.
It is important to also question why governments are banning or promoting specific technologies at all. Surely their role is to simply establish environmental standards that must be met across the board, regardless of who, or what equipment, is being assessed. The marketplace, not governments, should be left to determine which products win the hearts and minds of consumers. Implementing bans against specific technologies risks collusion between government and industry supporters and stifles innovation, all the while threatening even further damage to the environment.
Looking "green" is no longer good enough - governments must demonstrate their decisions really are green if they expect to be seen as anything other than political opportunists.
Tim Ball, chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor. Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and NRSP executive Director.
_________________
Imposed bans may be more hurtful than helpful Owen Sound Sun Times (On) Saturday, June 9, 2007
Page: A5
Section: Opinion & Letters
Byline: Tom Harris; Dr. Tim Ball
Premier Dalton McGuinty says that Ontario's green plan to be released in June will "outline big things we can do to reduce our emissions of carbon."
If the way his government is handling the used oil heating ban is any indication, small businesses that use advanced energy and waste disposal technologies but lack high level political clout should be very concerned.
When announcing the ban earlier this year, Minister of the Environment Laurel Broten asserted that it would force users of used oil heating systems to "be good neighbours to their community because they won't be killing the rest of us with what is coming out of there (used oil furnaces)".
Such strong language suggests she must be very confident that her ban will help the environment and augment the health of Ontarians. But would it?
Used oil heaters have been successfully operating in the province for at least 15 years. Hundreds of small businesses in Ontario, at least 20 in Owen Sound alone - car dealerships, bus fleets, farm equipment dealers, etc. - have invested in these systems to carefully dispose of waste oil while reducing space heating costs. Strict emission regulations apply and we know of no evidence that these regulations are not being followed. Does the alternative Broten now promotes - the complex process of mass collection and re-refining the used oil so that a portion of it may be re-used - actually have less environmental impact than controlled burning where the oil is first collected?
The only way to answer this question would be to conduct a comprehensive lifecycle environmental impact assessment of competing options for handling waste oil. Understanding the complexity of this process, we wondered if the Ministry had actually done their homework.
So, on April 20, we asked Broten to explain how she came to her decision. Six weeks later, despite many reminders, Broten has yet to respond at all.
One would expect that, if her decision was based on a proper environmental analysis, she would readily disclose the information we requested.
It is perhaps revealing that the minister announced the ban from the local headquarters of the largest used oil re-refiner, a company that stands to significantly increase their business as a result of her decision. Flying in from Texas for Broten's proclamation was the president of the re-refiner company, who had an announcement of his own - they had just purchased six hectares of land adjacent to their existing property.
The president explained, ". . . more stock (used oil) available encourages us to make the capital investment to expand this facility."
Broten's used oil heating ban, and the way in which the decision was made, should set off alarm bells for Ontario small businesses - are you next?
You may be meeting all environmental regulations concerning the product you produce or use but the government may suddenly ban it.
Government has no business banning specific technologies while promoting others. They should simply set environmental standards that apply across the board and let the marketplace determine winners and losers.
McGuinty must direct Broten to explain how she decided to ban used oil heating - otherwise, Ontarians will conclude that helping the environment is the last thing on her mind.
Dr. Timothy Ball, chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and NRSP executive director.
