Fun with Waste: Trashion Fashion

, ,

Created in 2011, Trashionfashion is a not-for-profit organization that is on a mission to contribute to a global reduction of waste through creative solutions. The organization hopes to foster a generation of conscious consumers, creators and communities who will change the way the world sees waste. The organization achieves this through productions, education, and community engagements.

Designer – Kingsley Chukwuocha⠀
Model – Melissa Amanda Walker⠀
Photographer – Justin O’Brien⠀

Ami Merli, adancer and yoga instructor, founded the organization in 2011. Through Trashion Fashion, Amy has created a network of zero waste designers, sustainable fashion companies, and businesses that are using alternative materials for products.

The organization’s Facebook page provides photos and videos of past trashion fashion shows.

Making Producers Pay – From Stewardship to Innovative EPR Programs in Canada

, , ,

Written by Mark Youden and Maya Stano, Associate Lawyers at Gowling WLG

Product and packaging waste is increasingly drawing public attention across the globe. This stems, in part, from a growing awareness of massive plastic pollution accumulation zones in our oceans, government bans of single use plastics, China’s recent import ban on scrap plastics, and news of the Philippines wanting to return Canadian “recyclables.”  In this era, governments are increasingly turning to innovative waste management and diversion policies and laws.

To date, Canada has focused on two approaches for managing products and their packaging at end-of-life: (1) extended producer responsibility or “EPR”, and (2) product stewardship programs. For the most part, these programs (which cover various categories) fall under provincial jurisdiction.    

To varying degrees, these programs shift the end-of-life waste responsibility away from governments (and tax payers) and on to producers (e.g., brand owners, manufacturers and first importers).  Depending on the program, this responsibility includes reporting and funding (at least in part) the management of the waste created by their products.  

Stewardship versus EPR

Although often used interchangeably, there are key policy differences between product stewardship and EPR programs (as well as significant corresponding financial implications for companies). Generally speaking, EPR programs place responsibility (and costs) on product producers, whereas product stewardship programs generally rely on consumer-paid environmental fees or public funds. Although the emphasis in Canada has historically been on product stewardship programs, there is a growing shift towards transforming those initiatives to full-fledged EPR programs. Such EPR programs place full responsibility for designing, operating and financing diversion programs, and accountability for the program’s environmental performance, on producers.  The concept is intended to incentivize companies to not only bear responsibility for, but actually reduce, their product waste footprint (e.g., through recyclable product and packaging innovation).

Status of EPR Programs

Provincial Level

In 2014, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in Canada to implement an EPR system making producers fully responsible for funding and managing curbside and drop-off recycling programs for packaging and printed paper. Under the province’s Environmental Management Act and Recycling Regulation, producers must recover 75% of the paper and packaging they produce, and face fines if they don’t achieve this target.

Full EPR programs have not yet been implemented in other provinces – some provinces do require producers to pay for part of their recycling, but none outside of BC require producers to manage the actual system. At the local level, municipalities often bear the burden of dealing with urban waste generation, and towns and cities are increasingly expressing support for full EPR implementation to help cover the costs of expensive recycling programs. For example, the City of Calgary recently passed a motion to push the province into looking into EPR programs. 

Similarly, in Ontario producers are required to pay for 50% of the recycling system, but municipalities are actively calling for a full EPR model. In 2016, Ontario passed a groundbreaking bill that instituted an EPR requirement for all product categories. The bill also sought to prevent producers from discharging their liabilities to a third party, thereby making them fully responsible. These efforts culminated in the adoption of several new laws, including the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2016 (which includes payments to municipalities to cover their costs associated with the blue box recycling program), and the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 (which led to the development of the Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy).

Federal Level

At the federal level, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment began taking action in the late 1990’s in regard to its waste reduction target of 50% of the product waste that is placed into the market. Since 2004, the CCME has published several reports, analyses, studies, tools and progress reports in regard to the Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility, with product packaging recognized as a priority in that plan.

International Level

EPR has a long history in Europe, where it has existed in varying forms since 1990. Sweden and Germany led the way by encouraging industries that made and sold products to be responsible for the waste stage of those products. EPR programs subsequently spread to other EU countries and beyond.

Challenges with recycling recently led to the EU’s approval of a law banning 10 types of single-use plastics by 2021 as part of its shift towards a circular economy (which aims to keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, and recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life). Canadian federal MP Nathan Cullen has recently introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-429, the Zero Waste Packaging Act, which seeks to follow the EU lead.1 Stay tuned on the progress of those efforts as they evolve here in Canada.

The Spotlight on Product and Packaging Waste

A dispute between the Philippines and Canada has recently drawn attention on Canada’s product and packaging waste system.  In April 2019, the Philippines demanded that Canada take back shipping containers full of waste and recyclable plastics. Canada originally argued that it is not responsible for returning the waste that was shipped. This dispute, spanning over 5 years now, is complicated by obligations under international law (including the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 1992).  As threats from the Philippines President escalated in late April 2019, Canada offered to accept and pay for the return of close to 70 shipping containers.Those containers are now on their way back to Canada. 

This international dispute has placed the spotlight on the state of recycling in Canada (as many did not realize Canada ships its waste elsewhere).  This, coupled with the public criticism over the effectiveness of Canada’s recycling regime, could spark local governments to expedite implementation of waste reduction policy and full-EPR programs. 

In summary, EPR and product stewardship programs are here to stay and will increasingly impose significant requirements on product producers.  Our Gowling WLG team has extensive experience in the detailed requirements that must be followed to ensure legal compliance. Should you have any concerns or questions regarding your company’s product stewardship and EPR duties, please contact one of our knowledgeable team members.


1 https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-429/first-reading#enH123


NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

About the Authors

Mark Youden is an associate lawyer in Gowling WLG’s Vancouver office, practising in the firm’s Environmental and Indigenous Law groups. Mark is called to the bar in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and advises a wide range of clients on all aspects of environmental, Indigenous and regulatory law issues.

Prior to studying law, Mark obtained a Master of Science focused on biophysical interactions and the fate of contaminants in terrestrial and aquatic systems. He also worked as an environmental consultant for an international engineering firm.

Mark’s scientific expertise and multidisciplinary approach to the law help him provide clients with practical solutions to complex environmental and Indigenous law matters.

Maya Stano is a Vancouver-based Gowling WLG associate lawyer who practises natural resource, environmental and Indigenous law.

Maya has a wide range of legal experience assisting individuals, companies and Indigenous Nations and other levels of governments on natural resource projects, including mining, forestry, large and small scale hydro projects, oil and gas projects, and nuclear projects. Maya provides timely and effective advice at all stages of project life, from early planning and tenure applications, through construction, operations and final closure, decommissioning and reclamation. Maya’s services cover due diligence matters, permitting (including environmental assessments), land rights (including leases and other land access and tenure agreements), regulatory compliance, and engagement and agreement negotiations between First Nations, the Crown and proponents.

Maya also assists Indigenous Nations in various government-related matters, including drafting laws and bylaws, drafting and implementing trust instruments for sustainable long-term financial management, managing land use and rights on reserve, and working with land codes and other governance matters.

Maya studied law at the University of British Columbia, graduating with a specialization in environmental and natural resource Law. After graduation, Maya clerked at the Federal Court of Canada for the Honourable Mr. Justice John A. O’Keefe. Concurrently, she completed an LLM at the University of Ottawa, focusing on the legal implications associated with lifecycle management of metals.

Maya is also a professional geological engineer and previously worked on mining projects both domestically and abroad, as well as on contaminated sites across British Columbia, and on oil and gas projects in northern Alberta.

New global rules curb unrestricted plastic waste exports

, , ,

Governments at the 14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) of the Basel Convention recently acted to restrict plastic waste exports by requiring countries to obtain prior informed consent before exporting contaminated or mixed plastic waste. A deluge of plastic waste exports from developed countries has polluted developing countries in Southeast Asia after China closed the door to waste imports in 2018.

Fourteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention

“With this amendment, many developing countries will, for the first time, have information about plastic wastes entering their country and be empowered to refuse plastic waste dumping,” said Dr. Sara Brosché, IPEN Science Advisor. “For far too long developed countries like the US and Canada have been exporting their mixed toxic plastic wastes to developing Asian countries claiming it would be recycled in the receiving country. Instead, much of this contaminated mixed waste cannot be recycled and is instead dumped or burned, or finds its way into the ocean.”

The unanimously adopted actions on plastic wastes include:

  • Removing or reducing the use of hazardous chemicals in plastics production and at any subsequent stage of their life cycle.
  • Setting of specific collection targets and obligations for plastics producers to cover the costs of waste management and clean-up.
  • Preventing and minimizing the generation of plastic waste, including through increasing the durability, reusability and recyclability of plastic products.
  • Significant reduction of single-use plastic products.

A group of cured resins and fluorinated polymers was not included in the requirement of prior informed consent, which means they can be freely traded without notification.

The theme of the meetings was “Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste”. The meetings, attended by about 1,400 participants, from 180 countries, adopted 73 decisions.

$40 million Waste-to-Energy Research Facility Launched

,

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) recently launched a new Waste-to-Energy Research Facility that turns municipal solid waste from the NTU campus into electricity and resources.

Located in Tuas South, the facility is a $40 million project supported by the National Research Foundation, NEA, the Economic Development Board (EDB) and NTU, for its construction and operation over its projected lifetime.

Slagging Gasification

The first-of-its-kind facility in Singapore is managed by NTU and houses a unique slagging gasification plant, which is able to heat up to 1,600 degrees Celsius, unlike conventional mass burn incinerators which operate at around 850 degrees Celsius.

The high temperature of the plant turns waste into syngas (mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen) that can be used to produce electricity, slag (a glass-like material that can potentially be used as construction material), and metal alloy granulates that can be recycled.

Led by NTU’s Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute (NEWRI), the research facility will facilitate test-bedding of innovative technologies for converting waste into energy and useful materials through unique plug-and-play features. These technologies, if proven successful and implemented, can enable more energy and materials to be recovered from waste, thereby prolonging the lifespan of Semakau Landfill.

In Singapore’s context, slagging gasification technology has potential to complement the current mass burn technology as it can treat diverse mixed waste streams that cannot be handled by these mass burn incinerators today.

This slagging gasification plant also demonstrates another first with the use of ‘clean’ biomass charcoal as auxiliary fuel – a unique combination not yet proven in the market.

Possible research projects at the new WtE Research Facility

Over the next few years, NTU scientists and engineers from NEWRI will collaborate with industry and academic partners to embark on various research projects aimed at developing and testing technologies in the waste-to-energy domain.

Unique to the research facility is the ability to test-bed new technologies in “plug-and- play” style, which includes the capability to process diverse feeds like municipal solid waste, incineration bottom ash and sludge; provisions for the evaluation of gas separation technologies to supply enriched-oxygen air; syngas upgrading and novel flue gas treatment techniques.

How the gasification plant works

Municipal waste from the NTU campus is transported to the facility, which can treat 11.5 tonnes of waste daily.

The waste is sorted, shredded and transported via a conveyor and a bucket lifted to the top of the furnace tower to be fed along with biomass charcoal that helps maintain the high temperature of the molten slagging layer at the base of the furnace.

The waste is dried and gasified as it moves down the furnace. About 85 per cent of the waste weight will turn into syngas, 12 per cent into slag and metal alloy, and the remaining 3 per cent into fly ash.

The syngas flows from the top of the furnace to the secondary combustion chamber, where it is burned to heat a boiler to generate steam.

The steam then drives a turbine-generator to generate electricity to offset the energy consumption to operate this research facility. In a commercial larger scale plant of this type, the amount of electricity output can be significant enough to self sustain the plant operations with the excess channelled into the electricity grid.

The exhaust flue gas from the boiler is then treated with slaked lime and activated carbon and passed through bag filter, before being discharged as cleaned gas through a stack into the atmosphere.

Moving forward, NTU expects to partner more companies to develop and trial new solutions at this open test-bed facility that aims to contribute to Singapore’s quest to be a more sustainable nation.

Waste Not, Want Not: Recycled vs. Recyclable

, , ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

This past weekend, at a gathering with friends, the topic of recycling came up.

“Did you know that they can recycle cigarette butts now?”

Being known as the “garbage man” among my peers, eyes turned to me to confirm this seemingly revolutionary advancement in recycling.

I hesitated, knowing that my answer was about to make me a “Debbie Downer” and open a can of worms about what it really means to recycle something.

“No – cigarette butts cannot be recycled in conventional recycling systems” – I made sure to add the latter as a qualifier.

“But I heard about a program that takes back used cigarettes and turns it into new forms of plastic and compost!”

What my friend was referring to was the breakthrough program offered by Terracycle (read more about it here: https://www.terracycle.com/en-US/brigades/cigarette-waste-recycling).

And with a heavy heart, I launched into a lecture about the difference between something that can be recycled, versus something that is recyclable.

By the end, the disappointment in the room was palpable – I was the proverbial wet blanket that ruined the “feel good factor” of trying to do the right thing.

My feelings towards Terracycle and other similar organizations are heavily conflicted. On one hand, they are innovative, transformative and committed to finding new uses for problematic materials. The accolades they receive are well deserved, but I also think it creates a dangerous perception among the public about what items can (and should be) recycled.

Most materials can technically be recycled – be it cigarette butts, laminated coffee cups, chip bags etc. Given the resources, infrastructure, technology and time, we can find ways to re-purpose problematic materials.

It is in this space that organizations such as Terracycle thrive – they have forged literally dozens of partnerships with companies across the globe to successfully “recycle the unrecyclable”.

Win, win situation, right? Wrong.

While it may seem novel to turn ocean plastic into shoes, or chip bags into handbags, the hard truth is that this type of recycling cannot be readily replicated at scale. The processing technology involved is economically prohibitive, and really only available in jurisdictions in which the collection program is being offered.

The latter point is also why the environmental and economic impact of a decentralized logistics network is questionable – take back programs that ask consumers to ship things like coffee pods, chip bags, razors etc. hundreds of kilometers can be both inefficient and costly.

Going back to our cigarette butt example, there is no recycling facility in Canada (that I am aware of) that can economically recover the material… which is why it is so imperative that we distinguish between something that can be recycled, versus recyclability.

To me, the former is a technical question – does the technology exist to recycle a particular good? The latter however is a much more nuanced question that requires us to consider the economic, environmental and social impact of recycling activity.

As an example, 99.99% of people who work in waste will tell you that glass can be recycled, but I would bet that a significant portion of those people would question whether it should really be recycled (at least in a curbside collection system).

Why this matters is that the average consumer has difficulty differentiating between recycling and recyclability. Much like my well intentioned friends, once people hear that something can be recycled, they assume that to be a universal truth. When Keureg teamed up with Recycle BC to pilot a recycling program, people across the country thought that they could now put K-cups in their Blue Bin (which was never the case).

Perhaps a more insidious example of how this consumer confusion can result in catastrophe, is in the green washing of packaging. My social media feed is full of examples of CPG companies partnering with Terracycle (and others) to pilot new recycling programs. The dangers of this is that companies may be more concerned with the “optics” of recyclability, as opposed to developing products that can be sustainability managed at end of life. The key to a successful pilot is accountability and transparency – I don’t want a headline announcing a partnership, I want to know how much is being diverted, where it is being diverted and at what cost.

I want to impress upon the reader that this post is not about bashing Terracycle or any other company attempting to develop new ways to recycle problematic materials. Their work is critical in promoting consumer awareness, and has successfully married CPG companies and recyclers to work collaboratively.

However, we have to remember that recycling is only one of many tools we have to promote a circular system. Inordinately focusing our attention and resources on recycling may be at the expense of other, more sustainable options. Consumers have an intense appetite and interest in doing the right thing and keeping material out of landfills, but we have to be honest with both them and ourselves regarding the role recycling can play.

About the Author

Calvin LAKHAN, Ph.D, is currently co-investigator of the “Waste Wiki” project at York University (with Dr. Mark Winfield), a research project devoted to advancing understanding of waste management research and policy in Canada. He holds a Ph.D from the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University joint Geography program, and degrees in economics (BA) and environmental economics (MEs) from York University. His research interests and expertise center around evaluating the efficacy of municipal recycling initiatives and identifying determinants of consumer recycling behavior. Calvin has worked as both a policy planner for the MOECC and as a consultant on projects for Stewardship Ontario, Multi Material Stewardship Manitoba, and Ontario Electronic Stewardship. Calvin currently sits on the editorial board for Advances in Recycling and Waste Management, and as a reviewer for Waste Management, Resources Conservation and Recycling and Journal of Environmental Management.

Global Food Waste to Energy Market Growth (Status and Outlook) 2019-2024

,

LP INFORMATION (LPI), a market research company, recently published a report entitled Global Food Waste to Energy Market Growth (Status and Outlook) 2019-2024.

The report presents a comprehensive overview, market shares and growth opportunities of Food Waste to Energy market by product type, application, key companies and key regions.

With some 70 percent of food waste around the world still going into landfills, there is a lot of potential feedstock to keep this environmentally friendly carbon neutral fuel source coming. Food waste is indeed an untapped resource with great potential for generating energy.

Graphic by Russ Thebaud/UC Davis

The report presents the global revenue market share of key companies in Food Waste to Energy business. Companies mentioned in the report include Jonassen Industrial Projects Limited (JIPL), Quantum Biopower, Biogen, Clarke Energy, VAN DYK Recycling Solutions, H2Flow Equipment Inc., JBI Water & Wastewater, GWE Biogas, and Impact Bioenergy.

The report is a study and analysis of the global Food Waste to Energy market size by key regions/countries, product type and application, history data from 2014 to 2018, and forecast to 2024.

The report focuses on the key global Food Waste to Energy players. It describes the value, market share, market competition landscape, SWOT analysis and development plans in next few years.

LP INFORMATION (LPI) is a professional market report publisher based in America, providing market research reports with competitive prices to help decision makers make informed decisions and take strategic actions to achieve excellent outcomes.

Atlantic Power Acquire two U.S. Contracted Biomass Plants

,

Alantic Power Corporation, headquartered in Dedham, Massachusetts
(NYSE: AT and TSX: ATP) recently announced that it executed an agreement to acquire, for $20 million, the equity ownership interests held by AltaGas Power Holdings (U.S.) Inc. (“AltaGas”) in two contracted biomass plants in North Carolina and Michigan. The acquisition is subject to the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Craven County Wood Energy is a 48 megawatt (MW) biomass plant in North Carolina that has been in service since October 1990. Atlantic Power will acquire a 50% interest in the plant from AltaGas. The remaining 50% interest is held by CMS Energy. Craven County has a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Duke Energy Carolinas that runs through December 2027. The plant burns wood waste, including wood chips, poultry litter, forestry residues, mill waste, bark and sawdust.

Craven County Wood Energy, North Carolina

Grayling Generating Station is a 37 MW biomass plant in Michigan that has been in service since June 1992. Atlantic Power will acquire a 30% interest in the plant from AltaGas. The remaining interests are held by Fortistar (20%) and CMS Energy (50%). Grayling has a PPA with Consumers Energy, the utility subsidiary of CMS Energy, which runs through December 2027. The plant burns wood waste from local mills, forestry residues, mill waste and bark.

Grayling Biomass Generating Station, Michigan

Both plants are operated by an affiliate of CMS Energy. There is no project-level debt at either plant.

About Atlantic Power

Atlantic Power is an independent power producer that owns power generation assets in nine states in the United Statesand two provinces in Canada. The generation projects sell electricity and steam to investment-grade utilities and other creditworthy large customers predominantly under long‑term PPAs that have expiration dates ranging from 2019 to 2037.

NGIF’s $1.5 Million Cleantech Competition

,

The Natural Gas Innovation Fund™ (NGIF) recently announced a $1.5 million funding call to advance cleantech solutions in three strategic focus areas – energy efficiency; renewable gases (including renewable natural gas and hydrogen); and carbon capture – for natural gas distribution and end use industry in Canada.

NGIF is accepting submissions to its intake stage for funding requests to support new technologies and innovative approaches in the above three identified focus areas. We will make up to $300,000 in non-dilutive funding available per project in Canada, representing as much as 33 per cent of a project’s eligible expenses. The competition is open for small to medium enterprises and technology development start-ups in Canada and globally.

Interested applicants should download the Applicant’s Guide online and submit their investor deck at info@ngif.ca by June 17, 2019. More information on the Natural Gas Innovation Fund and how to apply can be found at www.ngif.ca.

The Natural Gas Innovation Fund™ (NGIF) was created by the Canadian Gas Association (CGA) to support the funding of cleantech innovation in the natural gas value chain. It seeks to fill a technology development gap in the sector and invest in innovation enabling natural gas solutions for current and emerging challenges facing Canada’s energy system.

The existing portfolio of companies that have received NFIG funding include iGen Technologies, CHAR TECH Solutions, and NextGrid.

Cities and countries aim to slash plastic waste within a decade

, , , , ,

Written by Dr. Chelsea Rochman, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto and Dr. Diane Orihel, Assistant Professor, School of Environmental Studies, Queen’s University

If all goes well, 2030 will be quite a special year.

Global and local community leaders from more than 170 countries have pledged to “significantly reduce” the amount of single-use plastic products by 2030. Success would result in significantly less plastic pollution entering our oceans, lakes and rivers.

Today, societies around the world have a love affair with disposable plastics. Just like some love stories, this one has an unhappy ending that results in plastic bags, straws and takeout containers strewn about the global environment.

As researchers who study the contamination and effects of plastic pollution on wildlife, it would be nice if by 2030 we no longer heard about plastics showing up in the stomachs of dead whales, littering the beaches of distant islands and contaminating tap water and seafood.

Plastic doesn’t belong on the beach. Shutterstock

It is time for some good news about the environment, including stories about how cities and countries are managing plastics and other waste materials in more sustainable ways, and how children will have cleaner beaches to play on.

No reason to wait

Scientists have known about plastic pollution in our oceans for more than four decades. It is pervasive in rivers, lakes and soils too. Plastic pollution knows no boundaries, with small bits of plastic found from the equator to the poles and even on the remote slopes of the French Pyrenees mountains.

Plastic waste damages ecosystems, smothers coral reefs and fills the bellies of sea life. In the absence of action, the amount of plastic waste produced globally is predicted to triple between 2015 and 2060, to between 155 and 265 million tonnes per year.

As a welcome response, global leaders have decided to act. At the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi in March, environment ministers from around the world signed a voluntary commitment to make measurable reductions in single-use plastic products, including straws, shopping bags and other low-value plastic items that are sent to landfill after being used once.

Similar goals to deal with plastic pollution have been introduced by municipal, provincial, federal and regional governments across the globe. Non-profit organizations and industry leaders are making efforts to tackle the problem of plastic pollution. For example, Ocean Conservancy is uniting citizens and organizations around the world in cleanups to meet their goal of an ocean free of plastics by 2030, and Unilever has pledged to use 100 per cent recyclable packaging by 2025.

Canada joins the movement

Canada introduced the Ocean Plastics Charter at the G7 summit in 2018, committing nations to work with industry to make all plastics reusable, recyclable or recoverable by 2030. That means sending no plastic waste to landfill.

Vancouver aims to be a zero-waste city by 2040. Although the city has reduced the mass of waste going to landfill by 23 per cent since 2008, it still has a long way to go.

Ontario also has its sights on being waste-free by developing a circular economy, which means keeping materials in use for as long as possible. The province aims to cut the amount of waste sent to landfills in half by 2030, a reduction of 4.5 million tonnes, through reuse and recycling.

To propel Ontario into action, Ian Arthur, the member of the Ontario provincial parliament for Kingston and the Islands introduced a private member’s bill in March to eliminate Ontario’s use of non-recyclable single-use plastic products such as straws, coffee cups and plastic cutlery, which ultimately end up in landfills. These plastics do not feed into a circular economy.

In addition, school children in Ontario are working towards collecting 10,000 signatures on petitions to ban single-use plastics in the province.

Canadians would like to see more action against plastic waste. According to a recent poll, 90 per cent of Canadians were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about the environmental impact of plastic waste, and 82 per cent thought government should do more to reduce plastic waste.

Bye bye plastic waste

Our research, and the research of others, has found that single-use plastic products litter our beaches and coastlines, small pieces of plastics contaminate our Great Lakes and the Arctic Ocean, and microplastics are present in our sport fish and drinking water.

Ambitious global, regional and local collaborations are sorely needed to truly realize these goals. It’s time to commit to ending the love affair with disposable plastics.

Individual action does work. Quench your need for caffeine by using a reusable mug. Hydrate with water from a durable and refillable bottle. Purchase groceries that come in containers that can be reused or recycled. Plan your kid’s birthday party and your work meetings without using disposable single-use plastics.

A decade of positive habits could lead to a future where plastic is no longer waste, but valued as a material that can be reused and recycled — shifting our current paradigm to a more sustainable one that lasts far beyond 2030.



This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

About the Authors

Dr. Chelsea Rochman is an Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto. Previously, she was a David H. Smith Postdoctoral Fellow at the Aquatic Health Program at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Rochman received her PhD in a joint program with San Diego State University and UC Davis in Ecology.

Dr. Diane Orihel is an Assistant Professor, School of Environmental Studies, Queen’s University, Ontario. Dr. Orihel investigates human impacts on aquatic ecosystems through large-scale, multidisciplinary and collaborative research programs. She holds a B.Sc. (Honours) in Ecology and Environmental Biology (University of British Columbia), Masters in Natural Resource Management (University of Manitoba), a PhD in Ecology (University of Alberta). She was a Banting and Liber Ero postdoctoral fellow at the University of Ottawa, and now holds the position of Queen’s National Scholar in Aquatic Ecotoxicology in the Department of Biology and School of Environmental Studies at Queen’s University.

Environmental Activist Organization oppose all forms for thermal treatment for waste

,

Written by John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng., Editor

In a recent response to the Ontario Environment Ministry’s Reducing Litter and Waste in Our Communities: Discussion Draft, a coalition of seven environmental activist organization spelled out their opposition of thermal treatment in all its forms as a means for managing waste in Canada.

With respect to thermal treatment of waste, the letter reads:

In our view, all forms of thermal treatment (e.g. waste incineration, energy-from-waste (EFW) facilities, pyrolosis, plasma gasification, industrial burning of waste as “alternative fuel”, etc.) should not be considered as diversion measures. Instead, these kinds of projects are – and must remain closely regulated as – waste disposal activities under Ontario’s environmental laws.

The coalition of environmental activist organization that signed the letter are as follows: the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Citizens’ Network on Waste Management, the Grand River Environmental Network, the Toronto Environmental Alliance, Environment Hamilton, hej!support, and the Citizens Environment Alliance.

The opposition by these organization to all forms of thermal treatment of waste should be discouraging news to companies that have developed innovative thermal treatment technologies and advanced air pollution control technologies. It means that there will be continued pressure for more lengthy and costly permitting processes across the country.

The letter should also be discouraging to companies that utilize waste as feedstock in the production of recycled products. In the letter, the authors state that they reject alternative or streamlined environmental approvals process for proven technologies that recover value from waste. In the view of the authors, there is no “red tape” that needs to be cut when it comes to the environmental approval process.

Proponents and involved in the environmental approvals process in Ontario for innovative waste management technologies including waste-to-fuel, waste-to-products, and waste-to-energy often complain about the byzantine, expensive, and lengthy approvals process in Ontario compared to other North American jurisdictions.

As an environmental professional with over 25 years of experience working in Ontario, I see innovative environmental technologies that are being development to help with the waste management problems facing Canadians. I have also seen my share of bad actors and snake oil salesman that have hurt the environment industry.

I believe there is a need for environmental activist organizations and proponents of innovative waste technologies to become educated about each others concerns in an effort to bridge the divide that appears to exist to the environmental risks associated with various technologies.