Latest news with #TorontoSolidWasteManagementServices
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.
