|
|
|
|
|
|
by Jay Arthur
One of the key elements of any 12-step therapy program is acknowledgement of the problem.
You can spent a lot of time, money and energy dealing with an issue but until you admit to yourself that something is wrong, you are probably wasting your time (and money and energy).
I am therefore very encouraged to see that Ontario's ailing waste diversion program may soon be on the road to recovery (so to speak).
After all these years of hand-on-heart swearing that the blue box was the be-and-end-all in the recovery of paper and packaging, the folks at CSR have finally seen the light.
Congratulations, guys. We are all very proud of you.
It's all there in Stewardship Ontario's January 21 report to the Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) board.
Stewardship Ontario is the virtual organization, staffed by CSR, which acts as secretariat to the blue box industry funding organization.
Not only does the report recognize that expanding recovery much beyond the 45% currently enjoyed by the blue box program may not make economic sense, it also acknowledges there could be better ways to divert waste.
That took great courage.
In keeping with the 12-step therapy, CSR staff made public statements to this effect in front of their peers at the Stewardship Ontario meeting in Toronto a few days before.
With almost evangelical fervour, Program Manager Derek Stephenson pointed out that increasing capture of some materials beyond their current levels could cost way more than the net benefit.
In the Proposed Blue Box Program Plan submitted to the WDO board, the extra costs involved in beefing up recovery are spelled out with dizzying clarity.
Just pushing from 45 to 50% recovery could push the net cost to $120 million per year!
"The higher the diversion rate is pushed, the more likely that higher cost materials will be included in municipal programs resulting in higher costs per tonne managed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
compared to the current rate," states the report (page 68).
So, 15 years after the blue box has become second nature for most people, and bombarded by almost weekly assurances that it is the most cost-effective recovery option, all of a sudden they are told it might not be.
It's funny, isn't it, how this little epiphany has come at the same that its members are being asked to cover half the cost?
There's more. Further down on page 68 of the report is the following:
"There is a future policy issue that will require the attention of municipalities, Stewardship Ontario and the WDO. At what point in time does it make sense to stop pushing the limits of the blue box recycling program, where costs would accrue at a disproportionate rate compared to the environmental benefit (i.e., higher increases in costs than in recovery of materials) and, instead, promote other diversion systems (e.g., full organics collection), where the money spent will proportionately provide greater diversion performance?"
This, from the folks who brought you that famous line: Don't let any get away!
Note that this law of diminishing returns did not matter when it was municipal taxpayers who were picking up the tab. But now that brand owners might be on the hook for half of the cost of the program, the other options are starting to look attractive.
Note also that in the 2000 WDO report, written by the same authors, it was pointed out that readily identifiable stewards were not so easy to find to support an organics program, and the costs would have to be borne by municipalities or the Province. So no stewards. I'm sure that would be very attractive for CSR's brand owners.
Of course, if we did have "other diversion systems", like the hybrid system of blue box AND deposit-return in British Columbia, recovery rates for most containers would increase substantially and the per tonne cost of our blue box program would be about the same.
Now that the important first step has been taken, it is just a question of time before all packaging in Ontario can hold its head high once more and cry, "I am truly recovered!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
