As one of the most frequent contributors to this website's blog pages, I have refrained from mixing municipal and provincial-federal issues. There is a general reluctance to introduce partisan politics into municipal affairs. There is also a reluctance for provincial and federal parties to intervene locally. With the exception of one or two event postings and calls to action, I have practiced this voluntary restraint.
Until now...
The Durham and York Regions project to build a large mass-burn waste incinerator must be stopped. It should not be built in Clarington, Durham Region or anywhere else. This is not a "backyard" issue even though there are many local arguments against the project: health impacts of toxic emissions, poor socio-economic return on a large investment and a glaring failure of local politicians to act in the best interest of their constituents.
From the provincial perspective, the current debate over Bill 150, the "Green Energy Act", has a direct bearing on the issue. The bill, as currently worded, is vague on the issue of waste-to-energy projects.
While on the topic of "green" energy, Infrastructure minister George Smitherman has directed the Ontario Power Authority to negotiate a power purchase agreement expected to pay 8 cents per kilowatt-hour to the incinerator. Since resale price of electricity is lower than that, the difference represents a subsidy for pollution. Homeowners pay (using Veridian's rates) 5.6 cents for the first 1,000 kWh, and the average wholesale price paid by large users is also rarely above the 8 cents mark (in only 8 months since mid-2002).
Another strong argument against burning waste is to ask "why are we making so much of it". The Ministry of the Environment's discussion paper Toward A Zero Waste Future: A Review of the Waste Diversion Act 2002 shows that Durham and York Regions risk being out of step with the rest of the province if the measures proposed in this paper are adopted as policy. In the paper, the MoE asks for help in determining how to implement policies for extended producer responsibility (EPR) and removing the burden of waste management from municipalities to place them instead on manufacturers and importers. The idea is that if producers are responsible for disposing of the waste they generate, they will have incentives to reduce unnecessary packaging and non-recyclable components. This policy initiative aims to address the wider problem of industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste, the two thirds of Ontario's waste which is not properly managed. EPR would apply to all sectors, not just residential.
At the federal level, we should look to the pollution of Lake Ontario and international responsibility. The Lake Ontario issue is simple to grasp: the consultants say the maximum effects will be felt no more than a kilometer away, but since the preferred site is a few hundred meters from the shoreline, we should wonder how water polluted in the vicinity of the incinerator would be expected to stay in place.
Finally, Canada signed and ratified the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) on May 23, 2001. POPs, unlike pollutants that decompose and dissipate quickly, are difficult to destroy safely, stay in the environment for years and become part of the food chain. They include PCBs (formerly used in electrical transformers), dioxins and furans. Incinerators are a major source of dioxins and furans. It would be consistent with Canada's responsibility to the Stockholm Convention to limit additional sources, especially one that releases POPs into the air to travel long distances.
Small actions taken locally do matter. Help Durham residents beat the incinerator.
