'Can it be - the "d" word is on the table?

by Jay Arthur

Well, knock me down with a feather!
The other day I was reading a discussion paper from the good folks at Stewardship Ontario/CSR. It was called  Blue Box Targets and Municipal Benchmarks--and there it was.
In an otherwise innocent-looking Table 2: Preliminary List of Policies and Practices to Support Achieving Material-Specific Targets were two words I never thought I would ever se in a SO/CSR document: "Deposit Systems".
Well, I almost fell off my chair.
There were seven scenarios in the paper prepared for the WDO's Municipal Industry Programs Committee, all designed to generate discussion at workshops and written submissions on how to increase the diversion of Blue Box Waste.
There was little there to get excited about, no forehead-slapping "why didn't I think of that?" ideas. And while they have finally acknowledged the existence of the take-back concept, they've completely missed the other obvious recovery enhancer.
Number one on the list should have been the fibre box.
As a lot of places are finding, dedicating a box to paper fibres can increase capture significantly. In the Windsor area they saw a 40% increase in recovery. It won't take long to offset the cost of the extra boxes given the additional material they are collecting. And this is material that is cheap to collect, has guaranteed markets and a fairly good price.
The first thing talked about in the discussion paper put together for the MIPC team was bringing in green bins for organics. Don't get the connection? Well, apparently this increases blue box waste diversion. The same scenario also suggested every-other-week waste collection and bigger blue boxes. I see this as three scenarios, and numbers two and three, while not exactly new and stunning ideas, do make sense. Also listed is user pay and bag limits--again, nothing new, but sound advice.
Changing packaging design is another canard that is well past its prime, but until we can get the brand owners' marketing people to start listening to their environmental

people we won't be holding our breath for any great breakthroughs there.
Market development is seen as another answer to our recovery needs. It may improve the bottom line by reducing net costs (assuming the markets actually pay), but it will not make people recycle more.
Landfill bans for blue box materials and mandatory recycling are great in theory but who will pay for the enforcement?
The sixth scenario calls for the implementation of a "high profile advertising campaign". The last time anyone did that it was called Don't Trash Cans and it did little to increase capture of the high value material. Apparently, follow-up surveys showed people had "recall" of the slogan but it didn't affect their behaviour. Glad I wasn't paying for the ads. There is no question that promotion is the key, if it's done right--but this is not exactly news, though, is it?  And I have to think that formula ads carried in the newspapers as part of their $1.3 million in-kind contribution are not going to have too much impact.
The deposit system scenario refers to the systems operating in other jurisdictions, where the promise of a refunded deposit, or even part of one, is enough to make Ontario's recovery rates pale in comparison. Should deposits be applied to all containers or even newspapers? the paper asks.
This latter idea was crazy enough that the newspapers delegate at a WDO board meeting questioned the rationale, as well she might. (It was quickly pointed out that the options "had not  been assessed for practicality", although it would have been nice if they at least applied a little common sense before submitting the paper.)
At any rate, it looks like we can at least introduce the idea of deposits now without fear of Mr. Bassett unleashing the dogs. So, for a start, let's look at wine and liquor bottles, and beverage containers.
Our environment minister may have to go chat with Mr. Cordiano over at Consumer Affairs, however. Recently in a media scrum, he pooh-poohed the idea for LCBO because the bottles would never be refilled. Maybe, maybe not.
But wouldn't it be nice to increase recovery by 20%? And it would be a lot easier  recycling clean, whole bottles than the broken glass we get from the blue box.