Latest news with #BlueBox
Hamilton Spectator
19-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Stouffville Pursuing Centralized Drop-Off Bins for Downtown Business Garbage Collection
● Stouffville Council has directed Town Staff to develop a full implementation plan for centralized, in-ground garbage drop-off bins for Downtown businesses. ● The decision comes ahead of Ontario's 2026 Blue Box program, which will shift recycling collection responsibilities to producers. ● In accordance with the regulations, the Town opted to end all municipal waste collection for businesses, prompting Council to explore alternative solutions for Main Street merchants. ● The selected bins would be locked and accessible only to local businesses, with no recycling collection included following an amendment by Councillor Sue Sherban. ● Her amendment also ensures associated costs would be recovered through the Downtown's special service levy, which is paid exclusively by Village businesses. ● The Village of Stouffville Advisory Committee (VSAC) preferred maintaining curbside collection. ● A report to Council later this year will detail final costs and be presented to VSAC prior to any final approval. Town Council has taken another step toward assisting Stouffville's Downtown with waste collection, opting to investigate a common garbage drop-off area for Main Street businesses set to lose collection services next year. If approved, the model would see shared garbage containers installed at a centralized location, likely alongside 6240 Main Street or in the Park Drive municipal lot. Business owners between Albert Street and Park Drive would hold keys to access the locked bins and be responsible for transporting their own garbage for disposal. A unanimously approved motion from Ward 6 Councillor Sue Sherban has directed Staff to develop a full implementation plan and cost breakdown for the program before final approval. While the option originally included recycling collection, Sherban's amendment red-lined that portion of the proposal. 'Staff have researched…in-ground bins similar to the bins located at the Leisure Centre and Ballantrae Community Centre. These bins are contained within the ground and have an aesthetically pleasing look and minimizes odours as opposed to metal front-end bins,' a related Staff report explains. 'This option could also be beneficial for garbage disposal during the upcoming Main Street construction project,' it adds. The decision is the latest in a months-long review sparked by pending changes stemming from Ontario's Blue Box program. Starting Jan. 1, 2026, producers of paper and packaging products will become solely responsible for collecting and processing residential blue bin materials. While residential collection will continue, the program specifically excludes certain non-eligible sources, such as businesses. Falling in line with those regulations, Stouffville decided to end all municipal waste collection for non-eligible properties. However, through a February Council decision, Staff were instructed to provide municipal collection options for Downtown businesses. In their report to Council, Staff presented four choices, each with varying service types and financial implications. The selected Option A carried an original estimate of $80,000 in installation costs for three garbage bins and three recycling bins, as well as $3,200 in annual garbage collection fees and $7,500 in recycling collection fees. Those costs will be reassessed following Sherban's amendment, and additional resources and expenses would also be necessary to obtain permits and install security cameras to discourage illegal dumping and misuse. Upwards of 12 parking spaces will need to be removed to make room for the bins. Staff cautioned that continuing service for some non-eligible users could trigger demands for similar support from other excluded properties, potentially creating significant financial pressure. They also warned that ratepayers might view such arrangements as unfair subsidies for commercial operators, leading to public complaints. Sherban's motion addressed those concerns by ensuring all costs associated with Option A be fully recovered through the Downtown's special service tax levy. The charge is mandated by the Town and paid exclusively by businesses within the Village core to support work conducted by the Village of Stouffville Advisory Committee (VSAC). Option B, which was strongly preferred by VSAC, would have retained curbside collection using 95-gallon carts placed along Main Street. This approach was projected to cost approximately $260,000 annually, with further expenses if the Town opted to supply the carts to businesses at no charge. Option C proposed deploying Town Staff and a new collection vehicle dedicated to Downtown pickup. That model required a $275,000 capital investment and about $364,000 in annual operating costs. Option D, the most cost-neutral path, would have seen the Town end waste collection for all non-eligible sources, placing full responsibility on Downtown businesses to arrange their own disposal services. Council had initially received the report earlier this month but delayed making a decision until members of VSAC could formally weigh in. While accepting Option A as an adequate fallback, they noted operational inconveniences, winter access challenges, and a possible increase in the amount of waste placed in public garbage bins along Main Street. The strategy will be refined over the coming months and put forward to VSAC before coming to Council for final approval. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
11-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Toronto eyes burning trash as landfill capacity nears limit
With its primary landfill nearing capacity, Toronto is asking residents to consider a range of future waste disposal options, including at least one controversial idea — burning thousands of tonnes of garbage every week. The idea is raising alarms among environmental advocates, who warn that burning trash releases harmful pollutants and poses health risks to nearby communities. To gather public feedback on various disposal solutions, the city is currently running a 10-minute online survey about how waste should be managed in years ahead. Options include expanding landfill capacity, exporting waste to other municipalities or incinerating it to generate electricity — a process known as 'energy-from-waste,' already used in Brampton and Durham Region , and under consideration in Ottawa. Charlotte Ueta, acting director of policy, planning and outreach for Toronto Solid Waste Management Services, says it's too early to commit to any specific plan, and no incineration facility or technology is currently under consideration. However, she acknowledges the situation is urgent, as Canada's largest city still sends an average of 450,000 tonnes of waste annually — more than three CN Towers' worth — to its primary disposal site, the Green Lane Landfill. Ueta says the focus of its ongoing consultation is on waste reduction, reuse and diversion. Toronto has no available land for a new landfill, and provincial policies limit the city's ability to expand or build one elsewhere, she added. However, the survey did ask residents about the option of building an incineration facility within the city. 'That's why we're asking the public about all potential options, including energy-from-waste,' she said. Joseph Lyng, general manager of Brampton-based Emerald Energy From Waste (EFW), says his company has submitted an unsolicited proposal to Toronto to process up to 500,000 tonnes of its garbage annually. The facility already burns about 150,000 tonnes of municipal and commercial waste, generating electricity and heat. Lyng says the plant is expanding to handle up to 900,000 tonnes and produce more than 100 megawatts of energy. Toronto's looming garbage crisis is part of a larger problem across Ontario, where landfill capacity is projected to run out by 2034 . Roughly one third of the province's waste is exported to the US, a strategy many say is unsustainable amid rising trade tensions. Recent changes to Blue Box recycling rules and the scrapping of a deposit-return system for non-alcoholic drink containers have further strained diversion efforts. Meanwhile, resistance to new landfills is growing. Under Bill 197, municipalities can block new sites within 3.5 kilometres of their boundaries, making it harder for Toronto to find alternatives. Lyng believes his company offers part of the solution. 'We don't produce the garbage — we manage it,' he said. Lyng argues that by processing waste close to where it's generated, facilities like Emerald's avoid shifting the environmental burden onto unwilling communities. Environmental groups have long opposed incineration, citing toxic emissions and long-term environmental and health risks. Emily Alfred of the Toronto Environmental Alliance said she's disappointed by the direction of the city's current consultation. While Toronto has long promoted a zero-waste goal and a circular economy , she says the framing of the survey places too much focus on whether to choose landfill or incineration — and not enough on how to meaningfully reduce waste in the first place. Alfred criticized the city's survey design, saying some questions appear biased or confusing, particularly those suggesting incineration could occur in the city. She argues that this frames burning waste as a neutral or even favourable option, without clearly outlining the environmental and health risks. 'Incinerators lock cities into decades of burning garbage — garbage that should have been reduced, reused or composted. They undermine the city's goal of zero waste.' Facilities like the Emerald plant in Brampton, she said, would need to burn hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually for decades, regardless of improvements in recycling or waste reduction. Instead of investing in incineration, Alfred believes Toronto should focus on improving organics and recycling programs, particularly in high-rise buildings where access to green bins is often limited. The Zero Waste International Alliance also opposes energy-from-waste , calling it incompatible with circular economy principles. Health experts have voiced similar concerns. The Peel region's medical officer of health warned that expanding the Brampton facility could push pollution beyond safe limits for local communities. The World Health Organization has linked uncontrolled incineration—facilities without proper emission controls—to cancer-causing dioxins and respiratory harm. Lyng says Emerald's operations meet strict environmental standards, with real-time emissions monitoring and annual third-party testing. Health impact studies commissioned by the company found no added risk to the surrounding area, he added. Calvin Lakhan, a professor and co-investigator of the Waste Wiki project at York University, says waste-to-energy incineration has historically been viewed negatively in Canada, largely due to its legacy as a dirty, inefficient and costly technology. In Ontario, it isn't even recognized as waste diversion. But modern systems used in Europe and Japan have changed that perception, and are widely used in dense urban centres. If Toronto moves forward with the idea, Lakhan believes it would likely involve best-in-class technology modelled on international examples. Still, he acknowledged concerns that incineration undermines zero-waste goals by destroying, rather than recovering, materials. While not ideal, he argued the city may need to consider all available tools, including advanced incineration, to address its landfill crisis. He urged the province to help municipalities pilot reuse and repair programs, such as textile repair fairs, which offer affordable, community-based ways to cut waste. Many cities, he said, lack the resources to launch such initiatives on their own. Lakhan called for more consistent provincial policy. Recent shifts — like weakening Blue Box targets and delaying organics bans — have left cities unsure of how to proceed. Clear goals and stable rules, he said, are key to long-term progress. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
11-06-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Toronto eyes burning trash as landfill capacity nears limit
With its primary landfill nearing capacity, Toronto is asking residents to consider a range of future waste disposal options, including at least one controversial idea — burning thousands of tonnes of garbage every week. The idea is raising alarms among environmental advocates, who warn that burning trash releases harmful pollutants and poses health risks to nearby communities. To gather public feedback on various disposal solutions, the city is currently running a 10-minute online survey about how waste should be managed in years ahead. Options include expanding landfill capacity, exporting waste to other municipalities or incinerating it to generate electricity — a process known as 'energy-from-waste,' already used in Brampton and Durham Region, and under consideration in Ottawa. Charlotte Ueta, acting director of policy, planning and outreach for Toronto Solid Waste Management Services, says it's too early to commit to any specific plan, and no incineration facility or technology is currently under consideration. However, she acknowledges the situation is urgent, as Canada's largest city still sends an average of 450,000 tonnes of waste annually — more than three CN Towers' worth — to its primary disposal site, the Green Lane Landfill. Ueta says the focus of its ongoing consultation is on waste reduction, reuse and diversion. Toronto has no available land for a new landfill, and provincial policies limit the city's ability to expand or build one elsewhere, she added. However, the survey did ask residents about the option of building an incineration facility within the city. 'That's why we're asking the public about all potential options, including energy-from-waste,' she said. With its primary landfill nearing capacity, Toronto is asking residents to consider a range of future waste disposal options, including at least one controversial idea — burning thousands of tonnes of garbage every week. The incineration pitch Joseph Lyng, general manager of Brampton-based Emerald Energy From Waste (EFW), says his company has submitted an unsolicited proposal to Toronto to process up to 500,000 tonnes of its garbage annually. The facility already burns about 150,000 tonnes of municipal and commercial waste, generating electricity and heat. Lyng says the plant is expanding to handle up to 900,000 tonnes and produce more than 100 megawatts of energy. Toronto's looming garbage crisis is part of a larger problem across Ontario, where landfill capacity is projected to run out by 2034. Roughly one third of the province's waste is exported to the US, a strategy many say is unsustainable amid rising trade tensions. Recent changes to Blue Box recycling rules and the scrapping of a deposit-return system for non-alcoholic drink containers have further strained diversion efforts. Meanwhile, resistance to new landfills is growing. Under Bill 197, municipalities can block new sites within 3.5 kilometres of their boundaries, making it harder for Toronto to find alternatives. Lyng believes his company offers part of the solution. 'We don't produce the garbage — we manage it,' he said. Lyng argues that by processing waste close to where it's generated, facilities like Emerald's avoid shifting the environmental burden onto unwilling communities. Environmental concerns grow Environmental groups have long opposed incineration, citing toxic emissions and long-term environmental and health risks. Emily Alfred of the Toronto Environmental Alliance said she's disappointed by the direction of the city's current consultation. While Toronto has long promoted a zero-waste goal and a circular economy, she says the framing of the survey places too much focus on whether to choose landfill or incineration — and not enough on how to meaningfully reduce waste in the first place. Alfred criticized the city's survey design, saying some questions appear biased or confusing, particularly those suggesting incineration could occur in the city. She argues that this frames burning waste as a neutral or even favourable option, without clearly outlining the environmental and health risks. 'Incinerators lock cities into decades of burning garbage — garbage that should have been reduced, reused or composted. They undermine the city's goal of zero waste.' Facilities like the Emerald plant in Brampton, she said, would need to burn hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually for decades, regardless of improvements in recycling or waste reduction. Instead of investing in incineration, Alfred believes Toronto should focus on improving organics and recycling programs, particularly in high-rise buildings where access to green bins is often limited. The Zero Waste International Alliance also opposes energy-from-waste, calling it incompatible with circular economy principles. Health experts have voiced similar concerns. The Peel region's medical officer of health warned that expanding the Brampton facility could push pollution beyond safe limits for local communities. The World Health Organization has linked uncontrolled incineration—facilities without proper emission controls—to cancer-causing dioxins and respiratory harm. Lyng says Emerald's operations meet strict environmental standards, with real-time emissions monitoring and annual third-party testing. Health impact studies commissioned by the company found no added risk to the surrounding area, he added. Waste-to-energy: A risky fix for a growing problem Calvin Lakhan, a professor and co-investigator of the Waste Wiki project at York University, says waste-to-energy incineration has historically been viewed negatively in Canada, largely due to its legacy as a dirty, inefficient and costly technology. In Ontario, it isn't even recognized as waste diversion. But modern systems used in Europe and Japan have changed that perception, and are widely used in dense urban centres. If Toronto moves forward with the idea, Lakhan believes it would likely involve best-in-class technology modelled on international examples. Still, he acknowledged concerns that incineration undermines zero-waste goals by destroying, rather than recovering, materials. While not ideal, he argued the city may need to consider all available tools, including advanced incineration, to address its landfill crisis. He urged the province to help municipalities pilot reuse and repair programs, such as textile repair fairs, which offer affordable, community-based ways to cut waste. Many cities, he said, lack the resources to launch such initiatives on their own. Lakhan called for more consistent provincial policy. Recent shifts — like weakening Blue Box targets and delaying organics bans — have left cities unsure of how to proceed. Clear goals and stable rules, he said, are key to long-term progress.
Hamilton Spectator
06-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Ford government proposes major rollback of Blue Box recycling rules
The Ford government has quietly proposed major changes to Ontario's Blue Box recycling program — changes advocates say will increase pollution, reduce accountability for waste producers and place more costs on renters and municipalities. The new rules would delay key recycling targets by five years, giving producers until 2031 to meet recovery goals for materials like paper, plastic, metal, glass and beverage containers. Those targets had been set to take effect in 2026. The proposed changes would eliminate rules requiring producers to collect packaging waste from apartments, long-term care homes, retirement homes and schools without municipal pickup. Beverage companies would no longer be responsible for containers consumed outside the home. The plan would also allow producers to burn non-recyclable plastic in incinerators or cement kilns and still count it as recycling. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks says the changes are intended to manage 'higher than expected cost growth' and ensure a 'stable and sustainable' blue box system during the province's transition to full producer responsibility. The government would allow producers up to 15 per cent of recycling targets to be met by burning non-recyclable plastic waste in incinerators or cement kilns. Under the province's Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, producers — including brand owners, retailers and importers — are required to manage recycling programs for packaging and single-use items. The current changes would weaken the 2021 regulations that aimed to shift this responsibility away from municipalities and onto the companies that create waste. Critics say the proposal marks a dramatic reversal of more than a decade of progress on waste reduction and recycling in the province. Karen Wirsig, senior program manager at Environmental Defence, said the changes would increase plastic pollution, promote incineration and burden communities with more garbage, all while letting major producers — like grocery chains and beverage companies — off the hook. 'The government is betraying Ontarians by seeking to reverse requirements that would have reduced single-use and unrecyclable plastics and to delay enforcement of these — now weakened — rules for another five years,' Wirsig said. The Ford government's proposal comes just a day after it passed the controversial Bill 5 , which also fast-tracks large waste facility approval under the claim that Ontario is facing a landfill crisis. 'From the moves this week, it is clear that the premier and the government think more garbage, more dumps and more waste-burners are good for Ontario,' Wirsig said, calling it a coordinated shift toward deregulation that benefits producers and the waste industry at the expense of environmental health and ordinary Ontarians. The government also proposes slashing the recycling target for flexible plastic packaging, such as food wrappers and plastic bags, from 25 per cent to just five per cent. The ministry says industry stakeholders argue these materials are costly, hard to recycle and often contaminate other recyclables. Komal Habib, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo and expert in industrial ecology, said delaying recovery targets by five years is excessive and risks weakening Ontario's circular economy goals. 'It's too long of a transition time to allow producers to plan and make investments for collection and recycling activities,' Habib said. On the decision to exclude multi-residential buildings and public spaces from producer collection responsibilities, Habib said it could have serious consequences. These sites produce a growing share of urban waste, especially in cities like Toronto and Waterloo — leaving them out of the system could hamper progress toward circular economy goals. Ontario is still dumping billions of bottles and cans, while other provinces profit from a deposit-return recycling system. Despite 81 per cent of Ontarians supporting such a system, last year the Ford government scrapped the non-alcoholic drink container deposit-return program, citing cost concerns 'for small businesses and families,' without providing any estimates. Big retailers and consumer brands have been lobbying the Ford government to weaken Ontario's Blue Box rules, claiming recycling costs are too high. Last year, in a joint letter , several Ontario municipal organizations raised concerns about industry lobbying for changes to the province's Blue Box Regulation, warning it could undermine the goals of extended producer responsibility and shift costs back onto municipalities. Ontario NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns said the Ford government's decision to delay recycling targets and loosen producer obligations is a clear example of corporate influence overriding public interest. He argued that big companies have had more than a decade to develop less wasteful packaging but failed to act. Tabuns said the idea behind extended producer responsibility was to force innovation by making polluters pay, but the changes signal a retreat from that principle. He added that the government's decision to allow incineration to count toward recycling targets would worsen climate emissions and increase toxic pollution. Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the government is effectively dismantling a system that was meant to make waste producers accountable and encourage less packaging waste. Instead, he warned, the rollback will lead to more garbage, higher costs for taxpayers and missed opportunities to build a circular economy. Ontario should be moving toward strict producer responsibility, zero waste targets, and greater inclusion of commercial and multi-residential buildings in recycling programs, not backing away from them, he said. A more effective approach would be to reduce the delay to no more than two years and push producers to invest in infrastructure, Habib suggested. She also urged the government to fund academic research to evaluate whether current recovery targets are realistic and sustainable. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
06-06-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Ford government proposes major rollback of Blue Box recycling rules
The Ford government has quietly proposed major changes to Ontario's Blue Box recycling program — changes advocates say will increase pollution, reduce accountability for waste producers and place more costs on renters and municipalities. The new rules would delay key recycling targets by five years, giving producers until 2031 to meet recovery goals for materials like paper, plastic, metal, glass and beverage containers. Those targets had been set to take effect in 2026. The proposed changes would eliminate rules requiring producers to collect packaging waste from apartments, long-term care homes, retirement homes and schools without municipal pickup. Beverage companies would no longer be responsible for containers consumed outside the home. The plan would also allow producers to burn non-recyclable plastic in incinerators or cement kilns and still count it as recycling. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks says the changes are intended to manage 'higher than expected cost growth' and ensure a 'stable and sustainable' blue box system during the province's transition to full producer responsibility. The government would allow producers up to 15 per cent of recycling targets to be met by burning non-recyclable plastic waste in incinerators or cement kilns. Under the province's Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, producers — including brand owners, retailers and importers — are required to manage recycling programs for packaging and single-use items. The current changes would weaken the 2021 regulations that aimed to shift this responsibility away from municipalities and onto the companies that create waste. Critics say the proposal marks a dramatic reversal of more than a decade of progress on waste reduction and recycling in the province. Big retailers and consumer brands have been lobbying the Ford government to weaken Ontario's Blue Box rules, claiming recycling costs are too high. Karen Wirsig, senior program manager at Environmental Defence, said the changes would increase plastic pollution, promote incineration and burden communities with more garbage, all while letting major producers — like grocery chains and beverage companies — off the hook. 'The government is betraying Ontarians by seeking to reverse requirements that would have reduced single-use and unrecyclable plastics and to delay enforcement of these — now weakened — rules for another five years,' Wirsig said. The Ford government's proposal comes just a day after it passed the controversial Bill 5, which also fast-tracks large waste facility approval under the claim that Ontario is facing a landfill crisis. 'From the moves this week, it is clear that the premier and the government think more garbage, more dumps and more waste-burners are good for Ontario,' Wirsig said, calling it a coordinated shift toward deregulation that benefits producers and the waste industry at the expense of environmental health and ordinary Ontarians. The government also proposes slashing the recycling target for flexible plastic packaging, such as food wrappers and plastic bags, from 25 per cent to just five per cent. The ministry says industry stakeholders argue these materials are costly, hard to recycle and often contaminate other recyclables. Komal Habib, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo and expert in industrial ecology, said delaying recovery targets by five years is excessive and risks weakening Ontario's circular economy goals. 'It's too long of a transition time to allow producers to plan and make investments for collection and recycling activities,' Habib said. On the decision to exclude multi-residential buildings and public spaces from producer collection responsibilities, Habib said it could have serious consequences. These sites produce a growing share of urban waste, especially in cities like Toronto and Waterloo — leaving them out of the system could hamper progress toward circular economy goals. Ontario is still dumping billions of bottles and cans, while other provinces profit from a deposit-return recycling system. Despite 81 per cent of Ontarians supporting such a system, last year the Ford government scrapped the non-alcoholic drink container deposit-return program, citing cost concerns 'for small businesses and families,' without providing any estimates. Opposition slams industry influence Big retailers and consumer brands have been lobbying the Ford government to weaken Ontario's Blue Box rules, claiming recycling costs are too high. Last year, in a joint letter, several Ontario municipal organizations raised concerns about industry lobbying for changes to the province's Blue Box Regulation, warning it could undermine the goals of extended producer responsibility and shift costs back onto municipalities. Ontario NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns said the Ford government's decision to delay recycling targets and loosen producer obligations is a clear example of corporate influence overriding public interest. He argued that big companies have had more than a decade to develop less wasteful packaging but failed to act. Tabuns said the idea behind extended producer responsibility was to force innovation by making polluters pay, but the changes signal a retreat from that principle. He added that the government's decision to allow incineration to count toward recycling targets would worsen climate emissions and increase toxic pollution. Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the government is effectively dismantling a system that was meant to make waste producers accountable and encourage less packaging waste. Instead, he warned, the rollback will lead to more garbage, higher costs for taxpayers and missed opportunities to build a circular economy. Ontario should be moving toward strict producer responsibility, zero waste targets, and greater inclusion of commercial and multi-residential buildings in recycling programs, not backing away from them, he said. A more effective approach would be to reduce the delay to no more than two years and push producers to invest in infrastructure, Habib suggested. She also urged the government to fund academic research to evaluate whether current recovery targets are realistic and sustainable.
