Latest news with #EnvironmentalRegistryofOntario
Hamilton Spectator
6 days ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Ford government's changes to recycling will hasten landfill crisis, municipalities warn
Ontario's shrinking landfill space could run out faster than expected if the Ford government retreats from long-held plans to add two new blue box programs, warns the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. In a letter to Environment Minister Todd McCarthy, AMO president Robin Jones said the suggested changes — including the cancellation of new blue box programs in apartments and condos — would 'exacerbate Ontario's projected landfill capacity crisis, which is expected to reach its limit in less than 10 years.' Landfill controversy is already exploding in Dresden, a southwestern Ontario community where the Premier Doug Ford's controversial new Bill 5 could be used to fast-track the reopening of an inactive landfill site against community wishes — and potentially without a traditional environmental assessment. Posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario in early June, the proposals, if passed, would 'undoubtedly impact waste diversion rates,' Jones said in her letter. Ontario has a previously stated goal of 50 per cent diversion by 2030, which means the province would need to divert an additional 2.5 to 3.8 million tonnes of material, based on 2022 numbers from an AMO report. The Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks suggested three significant changes, citing 'unanticipated' costs affecting producers: To reduce the materials going to landfill, the ministry proposed a percentage could go to 'energy from waste' — also known as incineration or, burning materials to create electricity. A spokesperson for McCarthy said the government 'heard concerns, particularly from small businesses, about unanticipated and unexplained cost increases to meet their obligations under Ontario's producer-run blue box system.' The changes 'will improve transparency' for all producers, said Alexandru Cioban, McCarthy's press secretary. But Jones said the government's proposed retreat undermines the goals of 'extended producer responsibility,' which basically means, 'If you make it, you take it.' Ontario's transition to extended producer responsibility is nearly complete, with producers taking on the cost of programs that collect and recycle the products and packaging they sell. These programs, administered by the not-for-profit 'producer responsibility organization' Circular Materials, take in hazardous waste and electronics as well as traditional blue box materials. In 2022, Ontario generated up to 15.5 million tonnes of non-hazardous waste, which is equivalent to 1.127 tonnes per person, according to AMO's Ontario Baseline Waste and Recycling Report. In Jones's July 7 letter, she said elimination of the planned blue box program in multi-residential buildings will create a 'fragmented 'two-tiered' system' where some Ontarians have access to recycling while others do not. 'Residents rightly expect robust recycling programs and environmental protection, creating an urgent imperative for municipalities to fill these public spaces service gaps,' she wrote. Large cities, she said, are adding thousands of new housing units and those residents 'will be left without access to the common recycling collection system.' Industry insiders say many municipalities stopped buying new trucks or upgrading recycling infrastructure because of the expansion plans. Now that those plans face the prospect of delays or elimination, municipalities are scrambling and will likely be forced to pick up the costs. 'This amendment,' said Jones, 'pulls the rug out from under existing plans.'
Hamilton Spectator
01-07-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
‘It's certainly waste disposal … but it isn't recycling': Critics say proposed changes to regulations could hurt Hamilton's air quality
The Ontario government is proposing numerous amendments to blue box regulations in the province — including one environmental advocates say could worsen Hamilton's already poor air quality. The proposal, quietly posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario earlier this month, would allow companies to count recyclable materials that were incinerated or used as fuel toward their recycling targets, up to 15 per cent of the target quotas. In addition, the proposal would give waste producers until 2031 to hit recovery targets for recyclable materials such as paper, rigid plastic, glass, metal and beverage containers. New regulations had been set to come into effect in 2026. Ian Borsuk, Environment Hamilton's executive director, said air quality in the city is 'not great' and allowing producers to incinerate waste 'isn't going to help.' 'It might very well counter or undo a lot of the work that's being done elsewhere,' Borsuk said. He said passive air quality monitoring done in partnership with Environment Hamilton showed a concerning uptick in air quality issues — but said there have been efforts to improve, including investments in active transportation and public transit. As well, Borsuk noted ArcelorMittal Dofasco — the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the province — is working on a decarbonization plan. The taxpayer-subsidized 'green steel' overhaul has faced unexplained delays and concerns the project — or its promise to end the use of dirty coal — is in jeopardy. But Borsuk said no matter how that project turns out, he expects it will improve air quality for Hamiltonians. Borsuk said there have been multiple energy-from-waste proposals in Hamilton over the past decade, including a since-scuttled gasification plant in the harbour and a scrapped proposal by Carmeuse Lime in Greensville to burn alternative low-carbon fuels in its lime kilns. While he said people think of incineration as a 'magic box' that you can put waste into — and though it does generate energy — the reality is there are still emissions and the leftover ash is often toxic. Borsuk said the proposal is not what Environment Hamilton had in mind when it comes to producer responsibility. 'Ultimately what we would like to see is a system set up so that these materials that can't be recycled just not being used anymore and we find alternatives,' he said. Borsuk said while he is sympathetic to the fact that the process is a fundamental change to the blue box program, at the end of the day, 'incineration is not recycling.' 'It's certainly waste disposal … but it isn't recycling.' Greensville residents are concerned the proposal could reignite plans for Carmeuse Lime to burn alternative low-carbon fuels — what residents called garbage — in their lime kilns. Meanwhile, Greensville residents are concerned the proposal could reignite plans for Carmeuse Lime to burn alternative low-carbon fuels — what residents called garbage — in their lime kilns. The community formed the Dundas and Greensville Environmental Concern group and successfully fought the company's since-scrapped proposal in 2023 to switch the fuel in their lime kilns . But group member Amanda Andrews said the proposed blue box changes 'opens the door' for every lime kiln in Ontario to start burning these 'so-called nonrecyclable materials.' 'Everybody needs to be making as much noise as possible right now because this is a very bad idea,' she said, adding the group is urging its membership to pressure local elected officials at all levels to oppose the proposal. Andrews added the proposal appears to have no prescribed regulations about what materials can contain, any contamination or combination of materials — or any technology to reduce potentially dangerous toxins emitted. 'Most of these kilns are from the 19th century — they're not incinerators, they weren't built for this,' she said. Carmeuse Lime had no comment when reached by The Spectator. The proposed changes impact legislation finalized in 2021 to transition to 'extended producer responsibility' — something which hands responsibility for recycling from municipalities to the companies that produce the packaging in blue boxes. In the proposal, the government suggested the extension to 2031 would allow producers 'more time to plan' and make investments into improved processing and recycling technology. The plans would also scrap requirements for companies to collect recyclables from multi-residential buildings, schools, long-term-care homes and retirement homes, citing cost concerns and to allow producers to 'focus on current blue box services.' Emily Alfred, a waste campaigner with Toronto Environmental Alliance, said while advocates expected the proposed changes to recycling regulations to water down the system, they were surprised at 'how bad they were.' She said the extended producer responsibility system should, in theory, make producers work to find a way to recycle the products, or move to more easily recycled materials. But that doesn't work without 'strict regulations,' Alfred said, adding the Ford government has 'chipped away' at what called the good parts of the legislation. 'Incinerating plastics is always a bad idea,' she said, adding that plastics are made of fossil fuels. 'Burning plastic is more toxic, is just as greenhouse gas intensive as burning fossil fuels, and it also doesn't stop the flow of more plastic.' Alfred said the proposal is 'scary' as kilns are not designed for burning plastics — and even incinerators that are designed for burning waste release toxic pollutants like dioxins. In a statement to The Spectator, Alexandru Cioban, a spokesperson for Todd McCarthy, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, said the government is proposing changes to the blue box program to 'improve transparency' for producers and 'help manage unanticipated cost increases' while maintaining current services across the province. Cioban said the province has heard concerns from small businesses about 'unanticipated and unexplained cost increases' to meet their obligations under the new system. He added the proposal to allow producers to meet up to 15 per cent of recycling targets by 'recovering energy from waste' would give them 'more options' to manage waste and 'help reduce the amount sent to landfills by turning some of it into useful energy.' However, Karen Wirsig from Environmental Defence said the province is crossing 'a huge boundary' by allowing incineration to meet recycling targets. 'It basically means that they're really giving up on anything approaching a true circular economy,' she said. Wirsig said flexible plastics and mixed materials — such as tetra paks and layered metal and plastic — are a real problem material in recycling, and what she expects are the top priority for burning. She said if producers can incinerate their materials and call it recycling, 'that opens the door to a lot of very bad practices.' In addition, she said it likely limits investment in recycling facilities or reuse systems if the materials can just be burned in existing facilities — like a cement kiln — who might pay for waste. Wirsig added burning garbage is 'very dirty,' which leads to a 'potpourri of very nasty pollutants' coming out of the stack. 'It's really an abomination,' she said of the proposal. 'I think this will absolutely undermine investment in recycling in the province.' Consultations on the proposed rule changes will be open until July 4. 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 .
