EPR FAQ: Answers to commonly asked questions and claims

, ,

Written by Calvin Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Co-Investigator: “The Waste Wiki” – Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

Oh goodness gracious, I appear to have really stepped in it this time (although I do suppose I have a history of doing that). My last article about EPR really rankled some feathers and resulted in some heated exchanges with people that disagree.

A little birdie even told me that the word on the collection route is that I am in cahoots with producers and that I am trying to derail the Blue Box transition. If I’m on the take, can someone please let my bank know? I apparently am not receiving any of the money they are paying me to speak out against EPR.

My response to criticism has always been more or less the same – show me the data. My last article asking for any information that supported the efficacy of EPR for packaging waste was met with radio silence. I did have one individual tell me I was wrong, but when I asked them to provide evidence, they responded that I should pay them for their time…. that was a bit of a head scratcher.

In any event, I thought I would share a document I recently put together for the Ontario Environment Ministry outlining some of York University’s responses to commonly asked questions or claims regarding EPR for packaging waste. I also want to re-iterate that I have no issues with EPR as a concept, nor do I think producers should be absolved of their physical and financial responsibility at end of life. My issue has to do with the way EPR is currently implemented, and the challenges that arise when our goal is increasing recycling.

Please note that some of these comments are Ontario specific and refer to proposed changes in the Blue Box legislation. I still think it is of value to those outside of the province to better understand the issues we face as we transition to 100% EPR.

Questions surrounding Extended Producer Responsibility

Extended Producer Responsibility subscribes to the “Polluter Pays” Principle (transferring the responsibility of managing end of life waste to the polluter.

While the polluter pays principle is certainly the spirit of EPR, people often erroneously conflate “polluter pays” with the inability to recycle a material. The most sustainable outcome is not necessarily the one that recycles the most material – from a life cycle perspective, package light weighting has far greater environmental benefits, even in instances where the package cannot be recycled. Instead of encouraging or incenting producers to develop the most sustainable solution, we are telling them to develop recyclable solutions, which in many instances, results in inferior economic and environmental outcomes. Our fixation on using recycling rates and recyclability as the measuring stick for success is why program costs are increasing by double digits year over year, while diversion is actually decreasing.

EPR is not intended to create cost containment; it purely a funding mechanism to shift the burden from the taxpayer to the consumer

A system that does not contain costs is not tenable or sustainable. This is the fundamental issue with existing approaches to EPR. Proponents will say costs are now born by the right party, but what that cost is has significant implications to all stakeholders. Further to that point, while the intended purpose of EPR is intended to make consumers responsible for end of life costs, existing and proposed approaches to legislation are obliging consumers to pay for the costs of operating the recycling system. Recycling is not and should not be the only end of life option that we consider for how printed paper and packaging is managed. Not all materials are created or recycled equally – thus, it seems prudent that we explore options that maximize environmental and economic outcomes by differentiating how and where certain materials should be managed. The decision to recycle everything, everywhere, is the foremost issue facing the long term tenability of the Blue Box program.

The proposed Blue Box transition will save Ontario taxpayers money

A common refrain made by advocates of the transition to 100% producer responsibility is that transitioning program costs to stewards will result in taxpayer savings. Under the proposed legislation, stewards will be responsible for an additional $135 million dollars in program costs (exclusive of proposed changes to what sectors are obligated). The underlying intuition behind the tax savings hypothesis is that municipalities will pass this $135 million in savings onto households, either through a reduction in property tax or utility rates.

While this would be an optimal solution, there is no evidence to suggest that this will be the case. Municipalities (particularly in a post COVID world), grapple with significant budgetary shortfalls and are in all likelihood going to take the funds “saved” from transitioning the Blue Box program and re-allocating those funds to other programs and services. In British Columbia, there is no data to suggest the transition to 100% EPR has resulted in a tax savings for households.

While there is an argument to be made that the reallocation of funds to support other municipal programs and services benefits households, the benefits that are accrued are indirect and do not offset the increase in packaging costs that are attributable to EPR.

EPR does not increase cost of living

As a tangent to the previous point, advocates of EPR often contend that there is no appreciable impact in the cost of living attributable to the transition to full producer responsibility.

An examination of how the fee model works and how producers respond to a corresponding increase in fee rates demonstrates that this is not true. In fact, the transition to a 100% EPR system has been modeled to increase “basket of goods” costs for consumers by anywhere from 6-12%.

While a supplementary document that accompanies this FAQ explains the relationship between EPR and the cost of packaged goods in greater detail, in short, the costs to consumers are both “direct” (an increase in fees directly translates into a proportional increase in packaging costs) and “indirect”(cost escalation resulting from producers passing costs onto the consumer resulting from an increase in their funding obligation).

A direct increase in costs are shown in how the fee model works. Any increase in recycling system costs are re-distributed to obligated materials in direct proportion to that materials share of overall costs. In Ontario’s case, the additional $135 million dollars in program costs that stewards are now obligated for are immediately translated into an increase in fee rates, which in turn, are built into the price of packaged goods.

Indirect costs are slightly more difficult to quantify, but are based on a log linear adaptation of an input/output model used to quantify the economic and labor impacts of waste management activities. Our adapted model attempts to isolate the specific impacts of increases in waste management costs on consumption baskets.

While the materials in the accompanying document describe this model in greater detail, increases in costs borne by producers can manifest in the following ways: 1) costs being passed directly onto the consumer in the form of increased prices or a reduction in product size 2) costs are internalized, but results in reduced investment, job losses, company contraction etc. 3) some combination thereof (most realistic outcome).

What few people seem to recognize is that the potential increase in costs borne by the consumer are multiples higher than the direct increase in the steward obligation. As an example, if producers collectively reduced their investment in the province by $135 million dollars, the overall impact on the economy is north of half a billion dollars in both direct and indirect costs (as per the input/output multiplier).

A steward lead EPR program will inherently contain costs

An argument this is made in favor of steward lead EPR programs (where producers assume responsibility for the entire system), is that they have a greater ability to control costs relative to muncipalities, as they are not bound by geographical boundaries.

This is a logical fallacy for a number of reasons. The foremost issue is that there is no evidence to suggest that stewards are more efficient at operating a recycling program or containing costs. Recycle BC, which is often touted as a best practice model of steward lead EPR, has experienced the highest increase in year over year recycling system costs of any province in the country. In the past 3 years, recycling system costs have increased by more than 45%. The purported benefits of cost containment by stewards can only be achieved if there is a coordinated effort that represents the collective interests of all obligated stewards. However, due to the sheer number of participants (that vary in size, sector and locality), most stewards are largely passive participants in the Recycle BC program.

A comment made by ministry staff that “Private industry has always claimed to be more efficient than government” is a bit of a half-truth. Private companies who operate in the same space/sector as a government equivalent is often claimed to be more efficient. However, handing producers the reigns to the Blue Box is not the same thing – this isn’t a situation where the Waste Managements, Emterras and GFLs of the world are being compared to municipal waste management operators. This is a situation where we are asking major CPG companies to take control of the waste management system. By their own admission (and feel free to ask – they aren’t shy in telling you), most packaging companies have no clue how to operate an efficient waste management system. They will in all likelihood have to engage in individual contracts with waste service operators (both private and municipal) who are managing the programs now…. Except, we have the added administrative costs of having to coordinate multiple companies with multiple contractors.

There is a term in economics that we refer to as “communication externalities”. Efficiency of communication and coordination becomes more difficult as a greater number of participants enter the system, particularly if participants are of unequal size, power or do not have access to the same information. Communication externalities are often sufficient to completely deter cooperation all together. This is a very real risk as producers take over the system, particularly because they lack a common voice or entity that represents their collective interests.

A steward lead EPR program will lead to new end use applications and end markets for difficult to recycle materials

There have yet to be any examples in Canada where stewards have been able to develop new end markets or viable end use applications for composite and light-weight materials. While there have been “one off” situations where producers have worked collaboratively with the waste service providers to capture and recycle a specific materials (i.e. Green Mountain and Recycle BC partnering to recycle the K-Cup), those solutions were neither scalable (only available in one locality) or economical.

The above example highlights the issue with this line of reasoning – in the absence of a relationship that is site and situation specific, stewards do not and should not have the ability to disrupt commodity markets. If a material inherently has value, the market will signal that this material should be captured, and that there will be an end market willing to purchase that material. If commodity markets dictate that a material has nominal or no value, then attempting to collect and recycle that material will result in a significant cost, with virtually no benefit. Unless there is prescriptive recycled content legislation that mandates the use of that material in new products (which may or may not have technical barriers), then the only use for that material will be in bespoke recycling solutions that are more novel than practical.

At present, recycling markets for composite and light weight plastics remains virtually non-existent, and it is unlikely that stewards will be able to change that in the near term.

A steward lead EPR program will incent producers to design more sustainable packaging

Referring to the principles of the waste management hierarchy – reduction is preferred to reuse, and reuse is preferred to recycling, then through that lens, many producers are already developing more sustainable packaging. Once again, the issue is that most people (both policy planners and the public) conflate recycling with sustainability – if it can’t be recycled, it must be bad.

While package light weighting has often been characterized as a negative due to low levels of recyclability, most life cycle analysis studies demonstrate that the “upstream” environmental savings (resulting from a reduction in material used, efficiencies in transportation and logisitics and increased shelf life) significantly offsets the environmental impact of being unable to recycle those materials.

Existing and proposed legislation incents recycling (and in some instances, takes punitive measures towards materials that have low levels of recyclability), but offers no credit for the waste reduction that is achieved. In many ways, the existing approach may result in an environmentally and economically perverse outcome, where producers “switch back” into heavier, but more recyclable packaging.

Issues Surrounding Proposed Impacts of the Blue Box Expansion into the IC&I Sector

We have no data

EPR is fundamentally premised on being able to allocate end of life management costs to the correct obligated party. In doing so, the following information is required:

1)     Who are the generators?

2)     What is the total quantity of material being generated/recovered (by sector and by generator)

3)     What types of material (composition) are being generated/recovered (by sector and by generator)

4)     How is waste currently being managed? (who is collecting it, where does it go, where does it end up etc.)

5)     How much does it cost to manage? (Including costs by activity type – collection/sorting/baling)

At present, there is no reliable data regarding the aforementioned data points with respect to the IC&I sector. We know neither the size nor scale of the issue, and have no ability to track how waste is managed throughout the system.

In the absence of having this data, is it is virtually impossible to determine what the steward obligation should be, or how to allocate those costs to individual stewards.

We don’t have the administrative infrastructure

Collecting the necessary data (including who is responsible for gathering this information, who owns it, and how this data is verified/vetted) is something that needs to be figured out before we can even begin to have conversations surrounding expanding the Blue Box into the IC&I sector.

Further to that point, the province also needs to be able to know the roles and responsibilities of affected stakeholders regarding quantifying and allocating costs to the appropriate steward.

Given the sheer # of producers who operate in the IC&I sector, the administrative externalities associated with the above activities are enormous, and are costs that have yet to be quantified when estimating what the increase in the steward obligation may be.

We don’t know if we have the infrastructural capacity

At present, the province has no way of knowing whether there is sufficient capacity within the existing system to accommodate for increases in diversion attributable to any legislative changes. With respect to material recycling facilities for printed paper and packaging, we do not even have a list of all the private and public facilities in the province, nor do we have any estimates surrounding their approved and existing capacity.

It seems entirely plausible that capturing more PP&P from the IC&I sector would require infrastructural investments to expand system capacity (for both collection and processing), which is a cost that has not been quantified.

Ministry staff have indicated that proposed changes are not intended to take effect for 6 years, and as such, it is impossible to understand what system capacity will be then, and what changes will need to be made now. This is not an adequate answer – the decision to invest in infrastructure, even if those changes are not anticipated for another 6 years, is something that needs to be planned for now. As an example, if we know that the proliferation of light weight and composite plastics is likely to increase over time, then significant changes will have to be made to existing infrastructure will be required (although I personally feel that spending money trying to capture these materials is a fools errand).

It is not good enough to say “I don’t know what the future will look like, but you will have to pay that bill when it comes due”.

Material from schools, long term care facilities and multi-residential sectors are heavily contaminated

According to waste audits conducted for these sectors, contamination rates are significantly higher for the recycling stream when compared to waste generated from single family homes.

Schools and long term care/retirement facilities struggle with fiber contamination in particular, which significantly impairs its value, or in some instances, makes it completely unrecyclable. As such, an expansion of the steward obligation into these sectors is likely to result in an even more acute escalation in costs (beyond what has been estimated), as revenues received from the sale of collected recyclables is likely to be depressed.

Markets for recyclables are deteriorating, and an expansion is going to make it worse

Setting aside concerns surrounding contamination and its negative effect on revenue, there is also the practical issue that collecting more printed paper and packaging from the IC&I sector is going to exacerbate already deteriorating prices for recyclables.

Beginning with the Chinese sword and further compounded by the global economic slowdown resulting from COVID, prices for most PP&P is languishing. As a result, any proposed legislative change that is likely to result in more recyclable material being marketed is going to make a bad situation even worse. With that being said, that is not necessarily an outcome that needs to be avoided – as noted earlier, allowing commodity markets to operate freely is likely to result in the most economically efficient outcome.

However, lower prices for recyclables poses significant challenges to domestic recycling brokers and re-processors, which necessitates that any legislative change that can potentially affect commodity prices is approached with caution.

Existing estimates surrounding the cost of expanding the steward obligation assumes a fixed IC&I material management cost

Current estimates by the ministry surrounding the proposed expansion of the Blue Box into the IC&I sector does not take into account the composition of material from these sectors. The general expectation is that stewards will be obligated for the total system cost of servicing these sectors, and will negotiate individual relationships with PROs for how this material gets managed.

For as much as I can understand and appreciate that the obligation does not refer to specific material categories, we cannot in good faith estimate a cost for servicing these sectors without taking into consideration what materials are generated by these sectors.

Collecting uncontaminated office paper from Office Buildings is fundamentally different than collecting a mixed bale of contaminated fiber and tetrapaks from a school yard. The delta in material management costs is enormous. To say that we don’t need to take that into consideration when developing our existing estimates completely ignores the reality of the situation.

No one size fits all approach

A sentiment expressed earlier is that not all materials are created equal, and neither is all recycling. So with that in mind, why should legislation treat all materials the same way?

Proposed legislative changes under the Blue Box transition has the potential to adversely affect a significant number of stewards, particularly those who manufacture light weight and composite plastics. However, these same changes are being embraced by beverage stewards, who are looking to capture as much material as they can from both the residential and IC&I sector. Ideally, legislation should be able to allow stewards the approach that yields to most economic and environmentally sustainable outcome, while ensuring that they meet their legislative requirements.

This is why it is so critical that the goals of Blue Box legislation should be outcome based (total carbon abated) as opposed to tonnage based (recycling/diversion rates). It is possible to recycle less material in an absolute sense, but achieve a superior environmental and economic outcome by prioritizing certain materials for recovery.

_____________________________________________________

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.

Fun with Waste: Bin Art

The City of Kamloops recently added to its collection of  painted garbage bins.

“I wanted to create something unique and eye catching with vibrant colours, depth, and cohesion that athletes, fans, families, coaches, and passersby will enjoy,” stated the artist, Kristen Gardner, who painted the works in a press release. “I hope that my work makes people smile and brings some happiness and vibrancy to the concrete setting.”

The project is aimed at increasing vibrancy and decreasing vandalism; each bin is given an anti-graffiti coating. Last year a couple dozen bins were painted over.

Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy: Towards a Wasteless Future or a Wasteful Planet?

, , , , ,

Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy: Towards a Wasteless Future or a Wasteful Planet?
Written by Antonis Mavropoulos and Anders Waage Nilsen
Publishing September 2020

HOW THE MARRIAGE OF INDUSTRY 4.0 AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY CAN RADICALLY TRANSFORM WASTE MANAGEMENT—AND OUR WORLD

Do we really have to make a choice between a wasteless and nonproductive world or a wasteful and ultimately self-destructive one? Futurist and world-renowned waste management scientist Antonis Mavropoulos and sustainable business developer and digital strategist Anders Waage Nilsen respond with a ringing and optimistic “No!” They explore the Earth-changing potential of a happy (and wasteless) marriage between Industry 4.0 and a Circular Economy that could—with properly reshaped waste management practices—deliver transformative environmental, health, and societal benefits. This book is about the possibility of a brand-new world and the challenges to achieve it.

The fourth industrial revolution has given us innovations including robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D-printing, and biotech. By using these technologies to advance the Circular Economy—where industry produces more durable materials and runs on its own byproducts—the waste management industry will become a central element of a more sustainable world and can ensure its own, but well beyond business as usual, future. Mavropoulos and Nilsen look at how this can be achieved—a wasteless world will require more waste management—and examine obstacles and opportunities such as demographics, urbanization, global warming, and the environmental strain caused by the rise of the global middle class.

  • Explore the new prevention, reduction, and elimination methods transforming waste management
  • Comprehend and capitalize on the business implications for the sector
  • Understand the theory via practical examples and case studies
  • Appreciate the social benefits of the new approach

Waste-management has always been vital for the protection of health and the environment. Now it can become a crucial role model in showing how Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy can converge to ensure flourishing, sustainable—and much brighter—future.

Source: Wiley Publishers

Waste To Energy (WTE) Market Size is Projected to Reach USD 27.7 Billion by 2025

, ,

According to a recent market study, the global waste to energy market size was valued at USD 17.3 billion in 2017 and is projected to reach USD 27.7 billion by 2025, growing at a CAGR of 6.1% from 2018 to 2025.

The Waste to Energy (WTE) or energy-from-waste (EFW) is the process of generating energy in the form of electricity and/or heat from the incineration of waste. The energy produced from this process is close to that produced from coal, natural gas, oil, or other processes. The waste to energy cycle is projected to reduce landfill municipal solid waste ( MSW) by 90 percent, which will further reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by the waste.

TRENDS INFLUENCING THE WASTE TO ENERGY MARKET SIZE

Substantial growth in energy consumption, coupled with increased emphasis on energy generation from renewable energy sources, is expected to push global waste to the energy market.

Increased domestic and industrial waste has prompted governments across regions to generate energy from waste. Furthermore, the increased investment by various governing bodies, particularly in developing countries in Asia-Pacific, such as China and India, coupled with rapid urbanization and significant growth in consumer spending capacity, is expected to drive global waste to the size of the energy market in the forecast period.

Biological treatments include the treatment of waste with microorganisms to generate energy. Such approaches are considered more environmentally friendly than thermal techniques, and their market penetration is expected to grow over the forecast period.

It is expected that high installation costs and toxic gas emissions during incineration would impede market growth over the forecast period.

WASTE TO ENERGY MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS

Thermal technologies have emerged as the leading technology employed to produce energy from waste. In 2019, the segment generated 87 percent of total market revenue.

Asia-Pacific is projected to witness the highest growth rate from 2018 to 2025, mainly due to the rise in demand for energy. The rise in industrialization, coupled with rapid urbanization activities in emerging economies such as China and India, is expected to drive the market during the forecast period.

In 2017 Europe, in terms of sales, retained the leading waste to the energy market share. This dominance is attributed to the rise in the production of municipal solid waste (MSW), combined with the increase in energy demand. This region is investing heavily in developing renewable energy production.

TOP COMPANIES IN THE WASTE TO ENERGY MARKET

Many players operating in this waste to the energy market are actively pursuing marketing strategies such as partnership, company expansion, mergers & acquisitions, and joint ventures to improve their position.

Key Companies:

  • Waste Management Inc.
  • Suez Environnement S.A.
  • C&G Environmental Protection Holdings
  • Constructions industrielles de la Méditerranée (CNIM)
  • China Everbright International Limited
  • Covanta Energy Corporation
  • Foster Wheeler A.G.
  • Abu Dhabi National Energy Company PJSC
  • Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.
  • Veolia Environment.

The End of Landfills in Ontario? Proposed amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and the Impact on Waste Management

, , ,

Written by Harry Dahme and Jessica Boily, Gowlings WLG

On July 8, 2020, the Ontario government introduced Bill 197 in the Legislative Assembly. Entitled the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, the proposed changes within the Bill amend twenty different Acts, including the Environmental Assessment Act.

While some of the amendments proposed in Bill 197 seek to address challenges encountered during COVID-19 (such as the changes to the Provincial Offences Act, covered in our COVID-19 Update), the Bill primarily includes reforms that were on the government’s agenda prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. These reforms include some of the most significant reforms to Ontario’s environmental assessment regime in many years. The Gowling WLG Environmental Law Group will be publishing a series of articles on these proposed reforms, which are expected to be fast-tracked through the Legislature this week.

From the point of view of waste management in Ontario, one of the most significant changes to be made by the Bill is the addition of a new section to the Environmental Assessment Act that would give municipalities the right to veto new landfills proposed to be located within their own borders or in adjacent municipalities where the proposed new landfill is within 3.5 kilometers of the municipal border. This amendment to the EAA would provide municipalities with the unprecedented ability to stop new landfills for any reason, even where the environmental assessment for that landfill would otherwise be satisfactory to the provincial government.

Demand the right coalition emerges

In 2018, Ingersoll Mayor, Ted Comiskey, started the “Demand the Right” Coalition of Ontario Municipalities, seeking support from other municipalities for legislation that would allow municipalities to say no to projects like windfarms and landfills.

On March 1, 2018, Ernie Hardeman, MPP for Oxford, the riding that includes Ingersoll, introduced a private members bill dealing with the issue. Bill 201Respecting Municipal Authority over Landfilling Sites Act, 2018, would have amended the EAA to prevent the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks from giving approval to an undertaking unless the municipal council had passed a resolution supporting the establishment of the landfilling site. The Bill did not receive Second Reading in the Legislature and died on the Order Paper when the Legislature was dissolved for the last provincial election.

During that election in 2018, Doug Ford stated that he respected “the right for local municipalities to make the decisions best for their communities.”

Following the election in 2018, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) released the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, which stated it intended to provide “municipalities and communities they represent with a say in landfill siting approvals “. No firm commitment to a veto was made at that time and there were no consultations on the proposed amendments to the EAA affecting landfills prior to the introduction of Bill 197.

The state of landfill capacity in Ontario

Many Ontarians are not aware of the waste disposal crisis in which Ontario finds itself. The Ontario Waste Management Association reports that unless new landfills are built, Ontario’s landfill capacity will be exhausted by 2032. More than 80% of this capacity is located within a small number of sites (15 public and private landfills). These predictions assume that Ontario will continue to export approximately 30% of its waste to the United States, primarily to landfill sites in Michigan and New York. Should those exports stop, Ontario’s landfill capacity would be exhausted by 2028: only eight years from now. This is significant since it takes years, and sometimes more than a decade, to obtain approval for a new landfilling site.

Even before the introduction of Bill 197, the length and uncertainty of the environmental assessment process for new landfills and expansions to existing landfills meant that this crisis was not improving. While increased waste diversion is a laudable goal, even with significantly improved waste diversion rates, existing landfill capacity will be put under significant pressure in the next ten years.

Bill 197

Given the near future waste disposal crisis in the province, there is a demonstrated need for new landfills to be built and existing landfills to be expanded. While Bill 197 aims to streamline existing environmental assessment processes for some projects, it introduces a municipal veto over new landfills that is expected to almost entirely halt the planning for and building of new landfills in Ontario.

Section 10 of Schedule 6 to Bill 197 proposes to amend the EAA by adding a new section 6.01, which would provide that proponents who wish to establish a landfilling site that is subject to Part II of the EAA obtain “municipal support” for the undertaking. Municipal support must be obtained, not only from the local municipality in which the landfilling site is situated, but from any other municipality located within a 3.5 km distance from the property boundary of the proposed landfilling site. This support, as set out in s. 6.01(5), is demonstrated by providing a copy of a municipal council resolution from each of the municipalities, indicating that the municipality supports the undertaking.

This requirement applies to not only new future landfill proposals but also to landfills currently undergoing the environmental assessment process, even though EAA approval had been previously obtained for the Terms of Reference for that environmental assessment process and even though the environmental assessment process was proceeding in compliance with the approved Terms of Reference.

Proposed section 6.01 applies only to landfills, as opposed to all types of waste management facilities based on the definition of “landfilling site” which is defined as a waste disposal site where landfilling occurs.

While section 6.01 certainly applies to new landfills within the province, it could also potentially  be read to apply to expansions of existing large landfills as well. Section 6.01(3) states that the section applies “in respect of a proponent who wishes to proceed with an undertaking to establish a waste disposal site that, (a) is a landfilling site; and (b) is subject to this Part.” While the plain meaning of “establish”, which connotes the initial or first approval and construction of a project, is consistent with the meaning used within the Environmental Protection Act in the context of waste disposal sites, “establish” is not defined within the EAA itself. This leads to the possibility that the unique characteristics of any landfill expansion could lead to an interpretation that the expansion involves the establishment of a waste disposal site. If that interpretation is adopted, then that has huge ramifications with respect to the future availability of landfill capacity in Ontario, exacerbating even more the imminent waste disposal crisis in Ontario.


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

Harry Dahme is a partner in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office and past leader of the firm’s Environmental Law Group. He has practised exclusively in the area of environmental law since 1984, and has a solid reputation as one of the foremost environmental lawyers in Canada. Harry is certified by the Law Society of Ontario as a specialist in environmental law, and is described by Who’s Who Legal: Canada 2014 as “widely regarded as a leading authority in the field,” by Legal 500 Canada 2017 as “absolutely fantastic” and by Acritas Stars 2017 as “an acknowledged expert in environmental law.”
Jessica Boily is an environmental lawyer in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office. Her practice focuses on environmental litigation, drawing on her commercial litigation background to achieve successful and cost-effective outcomes. She uses her procedural expertise and technical knowledge to advocate for her clients. Jessica understands that complex disputes require creative scientific and legal approaches. Her clients appreciate her practical advice when managing and resolving multi-party environmental disputes. When litigation is necessary, her clients know her courtroom and tribunal experience will help them achieve the outcome they want.

Fun with Waste: Milk Waste to T-shirts

Mi Terro, a Los Angeles-based cleantech startup recently began manufacturing T-shirts using spoiled using fibers manufactured from spoiled milk.  The company uses biotechnology to re-engineer milk proteins into sustainable fibers.  The fibers can replace plastic in fashion, medical, and packaging industries.  The fibers can also be used to make t-shirts using 60% less water than required for an organic cotton shirt.

The fiber-from-milk method was invented in just three months by co-founders Robert Luo and Daniel Zhuang. After visiting his uncle’s dairy farm in China in 2018, Luo saw just how much milk product gets dumped first-hand, and after some research, he found that the issue was one of a massive global scale.

Mi Terro is make up of a team of Ph.D material scientists and chemists. The company aims to redefine circular economy in which everything begins with food waste and ends as recyclable or biodegradable.

 

 

Fun with Waste: Upcycling old clothes

,

In a recent article in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, describes the upcycling efforts of Jess Gillis who is creating new redesigns of old clothes.  could be a fun way to upcycle some of her older pieces.  In the article, she is quoted, “Thrifting and upcycling is so useful when you’re looking for a unique piece for your wardrobe. Plus, you’re helping to reduce the waste that is produced by the fashion industry.”

In Canada, each household throws away approximately 100 pounds of clothing per year, contributing to the rapid filling of  landfills with textiles.  Many of textiles could have been repurposed.

“I am trying to do my part to be a more environmentally conscious person and the fashion industry is a major contributor to pollution,” she says. “It’s important to understand the environmental impact we cause with each decision we make as consumers. So, upcycling is a great way to be more sustainable and express yourself.”

 

 

 

Waste Technology Company selected as a “Technology Pioneer” by the World Economic Forum

, , , ,

Enevo, a smart waste technology company, was recently selected among hundreds of candidates as one of the World Economic Forum’s “Technology Pioneers”.  Enevo’s unique Internet of Things (IoT) sensor technology, analytics and logistics software monitor and predict waste behavior to create custom, sustainable, and efficient waste services.

The World Economic Forum’s Technology Pioneers are early to growth-stage companies from around the world that are involved in the design, development and deployment of new technologies and innovations, and are poised to have a significant impact on business and society. Technology Pioneers community is an integral part of the larger Global Innovators community of start-ups at the World Economic Forum.

Enevo’s waste technology was recognized for its innovative and practical use in the waste world and the benefits it creates for civilian life. Enevo’s smart waste sensor monitors fill levels and collections while its analytics software employs sensor data to create custom waste services. Resulting collection schedules and routes drive the fewest number of miles while avoiding container overflow, eliminating unnecessary collections and carbon emissions. Enevo’s customers decrease operation costs while increasing efficiency and sustainability.

“We are delighted the World Economic Forum has recognized our journey in changing waste management and how our innovations in waste data and logistics optimization contributes to global resource efficiency,” says Enevo CEO Fredrik Kekalainen. “We believe data is crucial to create meaningful changes. You can’t manage properly if you don’t have enough information. We started Enevo to help innovative technology,communities decrease waste and increase recycling practices through data insight. We are honored to receive this prestigious award and become part of the World Economic Forum Tech Pioneers community.”

This year’s cohort selection marks the 20th anniversary of the Tech Pioneers community. Throughout its 20-year run, many Technology Pioneers have continuously contributed to advancement in their industries while some have even gone on to become household names. Past recipients include Airbnb, Google, Kickstarter, Mozilla, Palantir Technologies, Spotify, TransferWise, Twitter and Wikimedia.

Technology Pioneers have been selected based on the community’s selection criteria, which includes innovation, impact and leadership as well as the company’s relevance with the World Economic Forum’s Platforms.

About Enevo

Enevo is the leading international smart waste technology company. With more than 100 patents, Enevo’s sensor technology and advanced analytics software creates custom waste solutions based on unique waste behavior. Enevo’s 40,000+ active sensors and software suite increase efficiency, reduce collections, decrease carbon emissions, decrease operating costs, and increase sustainability. Enevo has offices in Espoo, Finland, Nottingham, UK, and Boston, USA, and a global reseller network in more than a dozen countries.

About World Economic Forum

The World Economic Forum, committed to improving the state of the world, is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. (www.weforum.org).

About the Global Innovators:

The Global Innovators Community is a group of the world’s most promising start-ups and scale-ups that are at the forefront of technological and business model innovation. The World Economic Forum provides the Global Innovators Community with a platform to engage with public- and private-sector leaders and to contribute new solutions to overcome current crises and build future resiliency.

Companies who are invited to become Global Innovators will engage with one or more of the Forum’s Platforms, as relevant, to help define the global agenda on key issues.

Fun with Waste: Wetsuit Wrangle turns trash into Yoga Mats

What do old wetsuits, delicious beer and chic yoga mats have in common? The Wetsuit Wrangle.

On Sunday, July 5, from 3 to 7 p.m., Islamorada-based Key Dives will host the third annual upcycling event in the Florida Keys Brewing Co’s beer garden. Scuba divers do good for the oceans by bringing in old wetsuits for recycling into cool yoga mats and other sustainable items.

“Wetsuits are awesome. They allow us to dive comfortably in waters we otherwise wouldn’t be able to,” said Cortney Benson, Key Dives’ marine conservation coordinator. “But, they definitely produce a lot of waste.”

Benson, the mastermind behind much of the dive shop’s conservation efforts, came up with the idea for the “Wetsuit Wrangle” three years ago as a way to reduce some of the waste from the sport she loves.

“The idea behind the Wetsuit Wrangle is to make a big effort annually to recycle all old, unusable wetsuits in the Upper Keys,” she said, “and, we are going to reward you for recycling with free beer and great prizes from some of our favorite eco-conscious companies!”

In 2019, the Wrangle collected 185 wetsuits from around the Upper Keys. Key Dives worked with other local shops to collect the old wetsuits before the event, and then capstoned it with a fun afternoon at the brewery, full of music, eco-conscious products, art and, of course, beer.

Benson noted that coronavirus would likely result in fewer wetsuits this year, but she still hopes to surpass 100.

The wetsuits will be sent to New Jersey-based Lava Rubber, a company upcycling wetsuits and other “hard to manage scrap goods” like gaskets, weather stripping, compression sleeves, aluminum juice pouches and yoga pants into durable, upcycled yoga mats and other guilt-free goodies.

Each mat saves valuable “waste” from entering a landfill, Lava Rubber boasts.

For Benson, the business and fun of conservation is a part of everything she does.

Each wetsuit brought in for recycling at the Wrangle is good for one beer (limit one per person) and one raffle ticket (no limit). Raffle prizes include sustainable items from Sand Cloud, Stream2Sea, Lava Rubber and Key Dives.

“There’s a lot to love about this event,” Benson said. “We couldn’t do it without the Florida Keys Brewing Co. being so supportive of our conservation efforts. Together, we are helping to protect the environment while drinking delicious beer and supporting our local economy.”

Free Webinar on True Zero Waste and the Circular Economy

, , ,

This webinar is a complimentary event open to the United States Green Building Coalition – Los Angeles (USGBC-LA) community members and the general public.  It is scheduled for May 13th at 11 am Pacific Daylight Time.

Topics of discussion on the TRUE Zero Waste and Circular Economy Overview – Webinar on May 13th (11 am PDT) include:

  • What is Circular Economy?
  • What’s the difference between Circular Economy and a really good recycling program?
  • Introduction to the basic concepts:
    • Waste = Food
    • Build Resilience Through Diversity
    • Energy from Renewable Resources
    • Think in Systems
    • True Zero Waste Certification overview

Without urgent action, global waste will increase by 70 percent on current levels by 2050, according to the World Bank’s new report. The make-take-waste way of doing things is coming to an end and if we do it right, we’ll create massive new economical and social opportunities!

During the webinar there will be a discussion on how businesses can create value by striving for zero waste, seeing products and materials as cycles, the role of creative solutions, and how you can contribute to make the transition to a Circular Economy.

SPEAKERS

 Denise Braun, CEO All About Waste

Denise has over seventeen years of experience in the sustainability field, starting in Brazil and then moving to the United States. She is the founder and principal of All About Waste – a woman and minority-owned sustainability and zero waste consulting firm based in Los Angeles, CA. Denise and her team provide a diverse range of services including solid waste data collection and analysis, circular strategic frameworks, green building certifications, zero waste programs and certification, training/educational workshops, and community outreach. She has worked in various capacities on over 150 LEED-certified projects, many of which have achieved the highest level of certification with no clarifications. Denise is currently working on several zero-waste and wellness projects. She worked on the first TRUE-certified zero waste high-rise commercial building in the world. Denise has been responsible for over 30 million square feet of waste audits and has developed and analyzed technical waste management solutions for a large variety of building types. Denise has presented at numerous lectures, workshops, and conferences, including the annual Municipal Green Building Conference and Expo, Net Zero Conference, the Living Building Collaborative Zero Waste Forum and the GreenBuild Conference & Expo. She currently has several accreditation and expertise such as: LEED AP,  WELL AP, ENV SP, TRUE Advisor, Fitwel Ambassador and sustainable supply chain. She also is sitting as a Board of Director at USGBC-LA.

 Ryan McMullan, CEO Lean Green Way

Over his career Ryan McMullan has led several Sustainability programs including in Toyota’s Corporate Responsibility department and Rice University’s Facilities & Engineering department.  These have included strategically developing and deploying environmental targets across a wide variety of functional groups, reporting on environmental progress, greenhouse gas inventories, and developing programs for zero waste, zero carbon, and zero water.  He now consults with companies like Lockheed-Martin, Walmart and Mattress Recycling Council (MRC) to help them establish leading sustainability strategies. He is an advisor to TRUE Zero Waste Certification at GBCI and the Environmental Leader Conference. He earned his Masters from the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at UC Santa Barbara and his Bachelor’s from Rice University.  At home he keeps busy improving the sustainability of his home in Long Beach, California, teaching his 10-year-old son to conserve resources and design games, and writing on his experiences.