THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment
Fisherville, Ontario, Canada
Tel. 416 410-0432, Fax: 416 362-5231
Editorial: editor@gallonletter.ca
Subscriptions: subscriptions@gallonletter.ca
Vol. 12, No. 2, February 19, 2007
Honoured Reader Edition
****************************************************
This is the honoured reader edition of the Gallon Environment Letter and is distributed at no charge: send a note with Add GL or Delete GL in the subject line to subscriptions@gallonletter.ca. Paid subscribers receive a more complete edition without subscription reminders and with extensive links to further information following almost every article.Organizational subscribers also receive the monthly Sustainable Technology & Services Supplement. If you would like to subscribe please visit http://www.cialgroup.com/subscription. Individual subscriptions are only $30 including GST. Organizational subscriptions are $184 plus GST and provide additional benefits detailed on the web site. If you feel you should be receiving the paid subscriber edition or have other subscriber questions please contact us also at subscriptions@gallonletter.ca. This current free edition is posted on the web site about a week or so after its issue at http://www.cialgroup.com/galloncurrent.htm. Back free editions from January 2007 are available at http://www.cialgroup.com/whatsnew.htm
****************************************************
ABOUT THIS ISSUE
Extended Producer Responsibility has been one of the more popular pieces of jargon in environmentalist and Environment Canada circles for several years but not everyone means the same thing when they use the term. In this issue we explore what EPR is and come to the conclusion that, until we have national agreement on what EPR means, it is not a particularly useful term for defining government or industry programs. Nevertheless, there is clearly a role for extending producer responsibilities to environmental improvement of products: our feature suggests some of the initiatives that may be worthy of extension to a broader range of products and producers. You may find our review of Noah Sach's article, Planning the Funeral at the Birth, particularly interesting when thinking about EPR and what can be done.
The House of Commons Special Committee on the Clean Air Act is making remarkably little progress: our editorial explores where things may be going, and where we suggest they should go, with this very unusual Parliamentary Committee. In both our editorial and our review of current federal environmental attack advertisements we note that the current environmental race in Ottawa seems to be a race to the bottom. Apart from some funding for climate change and air pollution in Québec and for the Great Bear Rain Forest in BC, we wonder when the federal government will actually do something that improves the environment. Funding for research, while laudable, and promises of future actions, just promises, do not qualify in our definition of actions that improve the environment.
Another Ottawa event of concern has been the firing of Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner Johanne Gélinas by Auditor General Sheila Fraser. In the absence of any real information from Fraser, Sustainable Development mavens on the Hill are alive with gossip on this topic. We bring you the best that we have been able to find, along with an in-depth analysis of what Fraser did say (not much) and what Gélinas should have been doing (exactly what she did, as far as we can tell). GL believes that Liberal MP David McGuinty has the correct solution to this problem.
As always, you will find some additional interesting tidbits throughout this issue from industry, government, and environmental group sources. Frequent correspondent Peter Burstyn has come up with a very interesting idea for implementing residential energy efficiency. We encourage your letters, whether suggestions or comments, positive or negative. In the next issue, in addition to our unique reporting and commentary on environment and Sustainable Development news and events we will continue to explore EPR-type programs, reviewing some of the worthwhile initiatives that are effectively reducing environmental footprints.
****************************************************
MORE TALK, NO ACTION
Canada's Clean Air Act started out as the Conservative's plan for inaction on climate change. Salvaged by Jack Layton and the NDP when it would otherwise have gone down to defeat in the House of Commons, it now appears to have become an excuse for inaction by all four parties. Unless one of the three national opposition parties comes up with a real Clean Air Act in the next few weeks, the next election may well be fought on the question of which party is the least useless on the environment file. Not only is there an almost total lack of environmental leadership in Ottawa but there is so far no evidence that any of the parties has the slightest idea how to design and implement the transition to a more climate friendly economy.
There are two huge challenges facing Canada's elected followers (this word appears to be the appropriate antonym to leaders). First, the federal government has limited ability to implement environmental policy because Canada's most greenwashed Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, gave the environmental toolbox to the provinces. Hence there is little the federal government can do to regulate air emissions without obtaining the consent of the provinces. We'll likely all be fried before that consent is granted. Second, there is no one outside of the federal Conservative and NDP caucuses that thinks that Canada needs a Clean Air Act. The federal government already has more than enough powers without legislation to do the few things it can do to move us towards Kyoto compliance.
The government clearly introduced the Clean Air Act as a stalling tactic and, by agreeing to have the Bill go to Committee, the NDP has become an accomplice to further delays in action on climate change.
GL sees only one way out of the stalemate on climate change that all three opposition parties are now in. They must work together to design a climate change program that can be implemented by legislation without spending money. This last condition is necessary because the opposition cannot introduce spending amendments to bills, such as the proposed Clean Air Act, that do not already include government spending commitments. The restriction on spending may be a good thing: as GL has written many times before, we far too often measure environmental success by amount of money spent rather than by amount of environmental progress at least cost.
If the opposition parties bring forward and use their power in a minority government to legislate a package of amendments to the Clean Air Act that moves Canada towards Kyoto without spending taxpayer's money and without destroying the economy they will show that they deserve to be the government. If not, they will be further weakening public confidence in government as we have implemented it in Canada today.
We remain very confident that it can be done and that the tools are available today, in California, in Europe, and in the Kyoto Protocol itself. We are far less confident that our federal followers, in the Liberal, NDP and BQ caucuses, know where to find the tools or how to put them together. However, they have given themselves until the end of March to show us their skills and we are looking forward to discovering whether there is anyone there who deserves to be called an environmental leader.
Colin Isaacs
Editor
****************************************************
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
****************************************************
WHAT IS EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY?
Extended Producer Responsibility is most commonly used to mean making the "producer" responsible for the waste at the end-of-life of products and packaging. More comprehensively, EPR is supposed to cause producers to make products which are more environmentally responsible. In an article for GreenBiz.com in 2005, Guy Crittenden, editor of Solid Waste Magazine explains, 'True EPR connects producers with the downstream fate (and costs) of their products and packaging [which] drives eco-efficiencies up the value chain, culminating in design for the environment.'
Some EPR regulations are very complex, specifying fees, whether or not final users can be made to pay, who is to collect, etc., while others give flexibility to producers to set up systems collectively or on their own. Although it is called "producer responsibility", it is usually the consumer who ends up paying. Often a major objective of EPR is to divert some waste products, usually just a few, from municipal waste streams, but initiatives are growing in number and comprehensiveness, especially in the EU.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
ELEMENTS OF EPR
Among common elements in an EPR program are:
Voluntary or Mandatory: EPR is sometimes led by the industry on a voluntary basis but is often also legislated. Legislation may help deal with the problem of industry free riders who benefit from the program but do not pay their share.
Governance: who sets fees, decides on collection systems, decides on management of collected products, and runs the EPR program.
Fees: Fees are usually a subject of complexity and dispute around who pays and how fees are calculated, e.g. for packaging it may be based on weight. which means that producers who use glass, a highly recyclable and reasonably environmentally responsible packaging material, pay more than producers who use a multi-material or unrecyclable material. Sometimes the fee is charged to the consumer directly as an Advanced Recycling Fee paid at the time of purchase.
Specified recovery rates and definitions of acceptable EPR practices: for example, the European Packaging Directive allows conventional recycling, waste-to-energy burning, and chemical recycling for plastics packaging materials. Burning, with or without energy recovery, is not usually considered an acceptable EPR practice in Canada while chemical methods for depolymerizing post-consumer plastics are not in widespread use.
Definition of producers: although raw material suppliers, converters, and manufacturers are affected by EPR regulations, the term producer is often not the manufacturer but the economic agent such as the importer, brand owner, retailer, etc. For example, an Oregon state law effective January 1, 2006 made it illegal to install thermostats containing mercury in home or commercial buildings and it is the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning contractors who are required to manage the thermostats, which each contains about 4 grams of mercury, so the items don't end up in landfill.
Registration: Usually producers need to be registered to ensure that there are no free riders; if the producer is not on the list, then fees due are not being paid.
Definition of products: Unless the program is being managed by one company for its own products only, it is often a challenge to define the set of products or packaging covered by an EPR program. For example, the European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment initiative covers fridges, freezers, toasters, mobile phones, TVs, electronic toys, computers, medical equipment, etc while many end-of-life electronics programs focus on a much smaller set of products, often just computers, laptops and monitors. Product Care, an industry group, collects paint, solvents, pesticides and other household hazardous waste in British Columbia but only paint in Saskatchewan due to different legislation in the two provinces.
Control and use of fee revenues: One approach is for a government to run the program and charge back costs to the industry: producers often complain that the public sector has too little efficiency and that the costs rise without much benefit. Alternatively, industry may hire a private sector program operator or may set up its own non-profit organization to run the program. For example, in Germany, packaging producer pay fees and obtain the Green Dot to prove that their packaging is managed by an independent recycling organization.
Exemptions can be significant: One common criticism of EPR programs is that they often focus on consumers while neglecting business to business exchanges, e.g. only consumer packaging and not transport packaging. Perceived social justice issues or actively lobbying by producer groups may achieve exemptions for certain products/containers e.g. milk containers may not be subject to deposit-return fees. The new Ontario LCBO packaging regulations exempt containers of 100 mL or under yet the ratio of package to product is much greater for these products than for beverages in larger containers. No doubt Ontario residents will soon see a boom in single serving alcoholic beverage containers.
Different mechanisms of collection: Take back may be directly to the point of sale, through depots run for the purpose or combined with already existing depots, mailbacks or through a municipal collection system.
Where and when the product can be returned: The effectiveness of an EPR program may depend on how convenient and accessible the point of return is. Retailers tend not to want the return of the used products to their store due to fear of contamination, increased costs, or other reasons. In some programs, such a collection of spent batteries, same-location-return is part of a voluntary producer responsibility program. In Europe and Québec, reverse vending machines accept deposit beverage containers and provide a voucher or cash. In Edmonton, eco-depots accept household hazardous waste year round while other cities may have only a few HHW collection days a year.
Specifying what the producer is responsible for: Paying the cost of a collection system is often the main feature but other requirement may relate to such aspects as design for the environment. Additional requirements such as reducing emissions of harmful substances in incineration or land filling as well as smaller and lighter packaging may also be included in EPR programs.
Duty to report on collection, recovery and recycling: Producers or their designates may be required to provide data on recovery, recycling, costs of the EPR system and so on. Standards for environmentally sound management of the material and audits to confirm this ought to be essential to ensure that the EPR system does not end up harming human health and the environment.
Historic or orphan waste: Although many regulations are dated to cover those making sales as of a certain date, there are issues with products which have been already sold onto the market and which will sometime become waste. These may be historic in that the companies that sold or imported them are still in business or may be orphan in that the brand owner or seller is no longer in the market or in another country no longer selling to this market. Some EPR may require assurances that producers provide guarantees for financing of future waste to minimize the number of orphans.
Avoidance to barriers to trade: Regulations are often subject to scrutiny for trade infringements. In theory, EPR is allowed under World Trade Organization rules as long as the same requirements apply to both domestic and imported products. With globalization of production, an EPR program implemented in a small market such as Canada is unlikely to lead to the same amount of design for the environment or rethinking of manufacturing processes in foreign manufacturing plants as it will among domestic manufacturers.
Interim and Deadlines: There are often interim or phase-in stages to allow producers to adapt. Some governments help fund transitions or provide incentives. For example, in the Oregon thermostat example, the government offered HVAC contractors a $4 rebate towards the purchase of a Energy Star mercury-free thermostat through an incentive program sponsored by PGE, Honeywell, White-Rogers, the Product Stewardship Institute, the Thermostat Recycling Corporation and the Oregon government.
Education and Communications: Although producers may be required to participate in an EPR program, there is often no mandatory requirement on the final user to separate the items from municipal or commercial waste. Some effort and expense is incurred persuading the users to return the product. An innovative feature of the Product Care program in BC and Paint Care in Saskatchewan is that people can take away free paint, a good demonstration of the value of recycling.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
APPROACHES TO EPR
Different mechanisms may be used to achieve indirect or direct producer responsibility. Some examples are:
Liability: This is a traditional form of producer responsibility. However, unless there is some form of assurance of available funds set up at the beginning, the company may declare bankruptcy or be long gone by the time the liability is established.
Bans from landfill: If consumers can't get rid of an item without paying extra for its disposal, they may not buy it and will put pressure on producers to change the product or provide alternatives. Bans may include items which are harmful due to leaching of toxic substances such as electronic waste, household hazardous products, mercury thermometers, or batteries, and/or take up a large volume such as large appliances, tires, cars/car parts or demolition material. Bans often also try to mandate recycling by banning recyclables such as corrugated cardboard, scrap metals, and paper fibres.
Discontinuation of public services: For example, while it may still be legal to take certain items to the landfill, the municipality may no longer collect it at the curbside. This reduces the convenience for the consumer who might then choose an alternative product or method of disposal. Commonly this relates to leaf and yard waste but may include other items such as tires and bulk items.
Offering and limitations of public services: Some municipalities may offer pickup or depots so consumers have a place to bring problematic items. For example, in Vancouver, refrigerators, freezers, stoves, dishwashers, washers, dryers and microwaves may be dropped off free of charge at the landfill or Main Recycling Depot - up to 3 appliances per day per hauler but no assistance is offered for off-loading. Halifax allows householders to put out curbside one bulky item such as a large appliance as long as it is CFC free. Free CFC removal is available via a phone call for fridges, freezers and dehumidifiers.
Bans of certain substances in products or restrictions on materials: One ban which is already affecting the design of electronics is the European Union Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances (RoHS) (see also GL V11 N10). Certain hard-to-recycle materials may be banned from packaging such as PVC in one time use containers. Specified toxic substances, and/or products containing them, may also be banned.
Mandating reuse or refillables: Once upon a time Ontario had quotas for refillable soft drink bottles. In the EU court Germany lost the case for its quota system for refillables at the end of 2004. Denmark achieved almost 100% refill rate of beer and soft drink bottles before allowing cans and other non-refillable containers.
Corporate services replacing sale of goods: For example leasing programs for such products as cars and photocopiers provide for the producer to take back items and deal with recycling/disposal in an efficient manner. A leasing or rental company may have more interest in offering a durable product with readily available parts for maintenance.
Marketing or labelling requirements: Required labelling may include recyclability, recycled content or other environmental claims, warning labels about hazards, and so on. The idea is that the producer will have an incentive to improve the product to get a positive label or to avoid a "negative" label. Incentives such as preferences in green procurement, tax credits, subsidies for recycling and other 'carrots' may also encourage producers in EPR programs.
Take Back Requirements for Industry: Product Stewardship programs which require take back at the end of a product's life may be mandated by government.
Eco-Fees or Taxes: Fees may be applied to less environmentally preferable products such as plastic shopping bags and tires. Sometimes the fees are used to fund better management but other times the fees are for general government revenue in which case little environmental benefit occurs unless the fee is sufficiently large to deter buyers.
Deposit-Return Fees: Some fees are full return where the fee is an incentive to get the consumer to return the packaging but some deposit-return programs such as in Atlantic Canada are partial return where part of the fee is used to fund the recycling program. A common complaints is that the fee collector wins because of unredeemed deposits.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
ISSUES WITH EPR
EPR is most often just one part of a set of policies on environmental management but sometimes it can be too fragmented or too narrowly focussed to achieve any meaningful results. Not infrequently, EPR programs introduce compliance costs for producers in excess of the environmental benefits. The most common negative is perverse pricing where producers using recyclable or low toxicity materials have to pay while those which have products which are destined for disposal get off scot-free and may also receive subsidies. This is why at least one environmental coalition has the slogan, "Tax Bads, not Goods."
Some of the issues surrounding EPR are:
Business Reason Gaps: The amount that producers pay may not offset the other motivators to use toxic substances, excess packaging, etc such as presentation, protection of the contents, quality appeal, effectiveness, reduced cost of production, brand positioning and overall effect on profits.
Pollution due to Collected Materials: Governments often specify who has to pay for EPR but fail to specify what is allowed and not allowed as management options for the collected materials. Some wastes, such as electronics, plastics, tires, and ship deconstruction materials, may be dumped at shady recycling businesses in Canada or in developing countries. In such cases more environmental and/or human health harm may be done than would occur if end-of-life products were landfilled.
Broader Effects: When a large market enacts EPR or a related initiative, the benefits may extend far wider than planned. For example, the EU electronics EPR is expected to result in greener cellphones and electronic equipment all over the world as manufacturers decide to meet the higher standard. In the interim, the benefits may be negated by producers dumping the older equipment on poorer markets such as South America, Africa and Asia.
Social effects: For example, deposit return systems tend to increase the amount of scavenging and overt individual collection systems. The City of Vancouver even has a street-side garbage system which encourages this: garbage cans have rims for one to leave soft drink or other containers. There is often someone standing around just waiting for this to occur. People walking around with (no doubt) stolen shopping carts is also common. It works reasonably well in developing countries but GL wonders whether Canada really wants the entrepreneurship of garbage scavenging to achieve waste collection, especially in this time of identity theft. As a result of liquor and wine bottle deposit which came into effect this month, garbage scavenging for deposit containers and other goodies is now joining squeegeeing and panhandling as a significant occupation for Toronto's homeless people.
Availability and development of reprocessors - While some localities have established local processors or economic access to more distant processors, creation of recycling markets continues to be an issue in a low population density country such as Canada.
Design for the Environment: Most EPR require the sharing of cost even if one product is more environmentally preferable than another. Hence producers have no incentive to continue or to improve because their EPR fees will not decrease if they make their products more environmentally responsible.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
PRODUCTS AND THE EXTERNALITIES
Europeans have implemented product-oriented environmental regulations with Extended Producer Responsibility to a greater extent than in the US. A paper in the Harvard Environmental Law Review by Noah Sachs suggests that the transaction costs of EPR may outweigh the environmental benefits because the practical problems of implementation fail to achieve the product design incentives expected. Sachs recommends that the US explore other policies to account for environmental externalities.
Externalities are costs not reflected in the price, for example, pollution such as harmful smoke due to a factory using cheap coal. The producer saves on fuel costs while the other costs such as damage to health and landscape are paid for by society and the environment. Products such as lawnmowers and paints emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds during their use and disposal of heavy-metal-containing electronics releases hazardous materials in landfill and to the air with none of these costs borne by those who make profits from production and sale of these products. As the number of products in each household and business proliferate, the environmental impacts of these products becomes staggering. The cost of waste disposal such as the infrastructure including landfill is an externality because these are usually paid for by taxpayers rather than those who generate the most garbage. Sachs says that in this zero-cost-disposal market, neither consumers nor manufacturers have any incentive to reduce waste, packaging or consider the costs of disposal in production or consumption. The manufacturer benefits from the shortest lifetime consumers use the product on its way to landfill or incineration because the sooner the consumer buys again the better. Similarly when the products contain hazardous materials, there is no legal or economic incentive for the manufacturer to reconsider the environmental impact of the disposal of their product.
In the US, the focus is on production, controlling effluents and emissions and mandating technologies in a command and control regulatory system. This approach fails to address many of the product externalities. Exemptions for consumers and small quantity generators means that hazardous materials in products end up in the garbage can and leach into watersheds while the same materials as industrial by-products from manufacturing are subject to extensive controls. The author writes that the 500,000 million computers destined for discard from 1997-2007 contain 632,000 pounds of mercury while all the power plants in the US emit 96,000 pounds of mercury each year.
In the European Union, the regulations attempt to go beyond recycling to include the full life-cycle of products encompassing material extraction, product manufacturing and distribution, consumer use and end-of-life disposal. The EU's Integrated Product Policy sets out a range of policies related to externalities through product standard-setting, ecolabelling, information availability, and green public procurement.
The most common implementation of EPR is through take-back legislation in which consumers pay a fee which then obligates manufactures to take back their product when the consumer is done with it.
Sachs says that only sporadic interest has been expressed in the US at the federal level in EPR and there is relatively little legal literature about it. Sachs suggests that while the EU EPR has been successful in increasing recycling, it has been less successful in providing sufficient incentive to manufacturers to redesign for the environment. It is perceived as a market-based environmental policy but Sachs suggests that the mandates the EU has for labelling, reporting, recycling, recovery, material selection and product design are probably more effective in reducing product hazard than the take-back requirements.
Sachs suggests that the US should develop policies such as fees for recycling paid at point of purchase, tax on materials with undesirable environmental features, and specifying of content. Policies should encourage manufacturers to develop a closed loop reverse supply chain for their own products, he suggests, building on the voluntary take-back programs already in place in the US and supported with product legislation.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
COSTS AND BENEFITS
EPR programs are not uncommon but those that exist have rarely been evaluated, especially against environmental criteria. Stephen Smith, Professor at University College London wrote a paper for the OECD which suggests use of an OECD framework to evaluate EPR. Among the categories suggested for study are:
1. Environmental effectiveness: measure of environmental damage averted or caused.
2. Economy efficiency: whether abatement costs are allocated to companies which can reduce pollution at least cost.
3. Administration and compliance costs: Both public administration and private sector costs for compliance should be calculated as costs of environmental regulations which could be used for other (perhaps more) productive purposes.
4. Revenues: effect on taxes collected or reduced need for taxes because producers are paying for waste collection and management.
5.Wider economic effects: for example employment benefits or costs, economic growth, rate of inflation, prices and other effects related to competitiveness, trade patterns and income distribution.
6. Soft effects such as on attitude, awareness and behaviour, for example encouraging people to separate their wastes for more efficient recycling or avoid certain types of environmentally negative packaging.
7. Dynamic effects and innovation: effect on fostering innovations rather than just compliance.
These criteria should be used, Smith suggests, to obtain an overall assessment of the balance between costs and benefits of EPR rather than alternative policy options answering questions like:
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
WDO: EPR BLUES
Ontario implemented a type of EPR program through its Waste Diversion Act in June, 2002. In brief, the Minister of the Environment announces targeted materials, the Waste Diversion Ontario, a non-crown government funded corporation consults and is supposed to recommend plans for waste diversion in cooperation with an Industry Funding Organization for each material (or group of materials in the case of Blue Box). Then the Minister is supposed to deliver the regulations to implement the plan. However, the system is clearly not working.
In January 2007, the WDO announced that it is consulting on Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste, with a plan to be forthcoming. It has taken eight months since the Minister announced that she wanted to implement an EPR program for these products to get to a consultation stage. The category includes but is not limited to:
The five-page draft product list expands on these definitions. For example, the pesticide category does not include: 1. insect repellents for personal use 2. sanitizers and disinfectants 3. pet products and 4. products regulated under the Food and Drugs Act.
Only one plan, for the already operating Blue Box packaging and paper recycling system, has been approved and implemented since the Waste Diversion Act was passed. EPR for other product categories is backlogged at various stages or not finalized. Among these are
In the only plan so far implemented, the WDO received the designation for the Blue Box Program on September 23, 2002, prepared the plan in cooperation with the industry group Stewardship Ontario by February 2003, submitted it to the Minister of the Environment on February 28, 2003 and it was approved February 1, 2004.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
GREENPEACE: GREENER ELECTRONICS
A September 2006 scorecard by Greenpeace evaluates electronics companies on whether they
clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances and takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.
The report states, "The two issues are connected. The use of harmful chemicals in electronics prevents their safe recycling when the products are discarded. Companies scored marks out of 30 this has then been calculated to a mark out of 10 for simplicity."
The companies are scored on:
"Chemicals policy and practice (5 criteria)
1. A chemicals policy based on the Precautionary Principle
2. Chemicals Management: supply chain management of chemicals via e.g. banned/restricted substance lists, policy to identify problematic substances for future elimination/substitution
3. Timeline for phasing out all use of vinyl plastic (PVC)
4. Timeline for phasing out all use of brominated flame retardants (not just those banned by EU's RoHS Directive)
5. PVC- and BFR-free models of electronic products on the market. (BFRs are brominated flame retardants)
Policy and practice on Producer Responsibility for taking back their discarded products and recycling (4 criteria)
1. Support for individual (financial) producer responsibility ' that producers finance the end-of-life management of their products, by taking back and reusing/recycling their own-brand discarded products.
2. Provides voluntary takeback and recycling in every country where it sells its products, even in the absence of national laws requiring Producer Responsibility for electronic waste.
3. Provides clear information for individual customers on takeback and recycling services in all countries where there are sales of its products.
4. Reports on amount of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) collected and recycled."
Nokia and Dell were rated the highest with 7 out of 10.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
DISPOSABLE PRODUCTS
While product stewardship programs address some important issues, the growing pile of one-time use items is overwhelming the garbage. Back in the fall of 2006, Heather Cohen of the CBC found a plethora of disposable products. She observed that the throwaway aspect becomes a marketing feature for simplicity, cleanliness and no maintenance. Among the items were
Some of the phone-in callers expressed their frustration at the perverse pricing. For example, a new inkjet printer comes with inkjet cartridges; the whole package is cheaper than buying the cartridges so the new printer is basically disposable. Similarly with cordless tools: one caller said you could buy them in a heavy case with the battery, battery charger and the tool for $99 but the replacement battery cost more than that.
Cohen, Heather. CBC Radio. September 28, 2006. [The CBC has a search engine which works for only a portion of the content. As more info is presented in audio and video on the Web in general, it may become more difficult to access.]
****************************************************
SIEMENS: PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY INNOVATION
Editor in Chief Corporate Media of Siemens, Tobias Dennehy, based in Munich, Germany, introduced the February 2007 issue of the Siemens Journal with the importance for the company of "Taking a product's entire life cycle into account, from development, production and utilization to disposal or recycling... when you try to optimize products in ways that do not harm the environment or deplete resources."
The issue discusses a number of producer responsibility projects and notes that improving environmental performance in production operations has cut costs and offers competitive advantage not only for the company but also for its customers.
Examples of projects are:
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
SASKATCHEWAN WASTE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS
Beginning February 1, 2007, those who sell, distribute, manufacture or import electronic products in or into Saskatchewan will need to comply with the province's Waste Electronic Equipment Regulations. The only approved product management program, Saskatchewan Waste Electronic Equipment Program is an industry-led non-profit although those who don't wish to join/pay SWEEP can set up their own program subject to provincial approval. Every program must deal with a share of historic and orphan waste.
Products included are:
Each product has an Environmental Handling Fee: computers $10, notebook computers $5, monitors $12, printers $9 and televisions depending on screen size ranging from $15 to $45. The fee which is subject to GST is charged only once, usually by the "first seller" , for example, to be paid by the retailer when they purchase from SWEEP registered supplier. The retailer may then pass the fee onto the end-user.
At the end-of-life of the equipment, the user can drop it off without charge at a Sarcan depot which is run by a non-profit and receives other material for recycling such as deposit-return items. The waste electronics will be recycled responsibly with costs met by SWEEP. End-users are encouraged to explore other options before discard such as handing-down equipment to friends, selling it, making use of a manufacturer's take-back program or local municipality recycling collection.
The Executive Director of SWEEP is Dave Betts, President of Electronics Product Stewardship Canada (he is stepping down from EPSC as of June). The Chair of the Board of Directors is Sean DeVries of Panasonic Canada and the Treasurer Nick Aubry of Sony of Canada Ltd.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
LETTER TO EDITOR
Subject: Energy Efficiency
Hi Colin,
I too have been very disappointed with the "New Government of Canada", but not impressed with the "Old" Liberal version either !
I have an idea for a quick, cheap method to turn us around and on the path of energy efficiency. My proposal is that every new house in Canada must come with an estimate of its energy consumption (based on an assessment including a blower door test) in easily understood terms by 2008. The simplest would be to compute an expected gas consumption in annual cubic metres which should be accompanied by an actual cost estimate based on (say) 3 prices for natural gas.
A new builder should have to test just one of each model they build, so it shouldn't cost much. My Energuide "blower door test" & house inspection was $125. If you "bulk bought" these, the cost should be must less. Second-hand houses should comply by 2010. Again, the cost is trivial set against a typical house costing $200,000! Then, if an owner spends money on energy efficiency, they can hope to recoup some or all of the cost upon resale. And buyers can compare houses based on location, size, luxury, and another parameter - efficiency!
Best of all, it involves no government expenditure whatever - except perhaps a national awareness programme. But I bet that the better builders will take the initiative on that one!
By the way, I carried out energy efficiency improvements on my house 5 years ago. This cost $1900. I received $550 from Energuide. I saw gas consumption drop 24.5% (average over 5 years compared to previous 12 year occupancy). At $0.30 per cubic metre, this saves us nearly $200 per year for a 10 year payback on gross cost, or around 7 years after the Energuide rebate. Of course, if gas prices increase, the payback will come much sooner . . .
Peter Bursztyn, Barrie Ontario
****************************************************
COMMUNICATIONS: CONSERVATIVE AND NEW GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY
When GL's editor first entered the world of provincial politics his party and caucus provided two important rules:
1) Don't ask a question of another politician unless you already know the answer. Otherwise the answer may well be something other than what you are seeking.
2) Never mention your opponents by name because by doing so you will only help to give them profile and credibility.
This last rule is akin to the Dave Nicol, past President of Loblaw Brands, rule of marketing, paraphrased as 'Even bad publicity helps to sell your product, as long as they spell your name right, and even that does not matter too much'.
Assuming that these rules, and especially the second rule, are generic and not politically partisan, GL is puzzled by the communications strategy of the Conservative Party of Canada. The CPC seems to be helping to make the Leader of the Opposition much better known to Canadians. In doing so, they are also calling attention to issues in which they are perceived to be the weaker.
The CPC says that Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is a Stéphane-come-lately to the environment. Whether or not this is true, and former federal Environment Minister, David Anderson, who knows Dion from their time in Cabinet together, seems to think it is, Dion clearly won his leadership on a sustainable development campaign and he seems to have received credit if not for bringing environment straight to the top of the national political agenda, at least for great timing in recognizing its importance. The Conservative campaign criticizing Dion seems to GL to focus attention on how late the Conservatives have arrived to expressing an interest in environmental issues. After the Prime Minister gave his speech to the Canadian Club on the first anniversary of coming into power, even Don Martin in the normally supportive conservative National Post said, "Still, you can't help but be disappointed that the never-green turned ever-green Prime Minister didn't use the podium yesterday to announce new initiatives on this abruptly critical file....He then heaped plenty of empty rhetoric on the need to hand over cleaner air, water and unspoiled wilderness to our children."
One of the problems Stéphane Dion faced is that he was not that well known across Canada as he filled the position of Environment Minister only since July 2004 and before that occupied the relatively low profile Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio. The attack ads may have succeeded in bringing Dion's serious but quite friendly and distinctive face into public profile. And interestingly may have puzzled some Canadians because the ads were launched during the Super Bowl. John Wright of Ipsos-Reid speaking on CBC Newsworld said that the reason for the launch at the sports event was that the CPC is trying to target 18-34 year old guys to convince them the CPCs form a government who gets things done on the environment. Wright said he was not convinced that they are going to have a lot of credibility out there. In a letter to editor of the Hamilton Spectator, one reader wondered why the CPC was advertising to Americans, the writer apparently not realizing that the ads are only available in Canada as American Super Bowl ads are blocked.
The claim that Dion named his dog Kyoto for political opportunism might be true but petty and so what - it just highlights the possibility that Dion might be thinking of the environment every day even when he pets his white husky. Canadians may be getting dog-tired of this backbiting but the media didn't miss an opportunity to show Dion with his pooch - free publicity featuring an attractive alert animal pleased with its owner the ad makers would grind their teeth to sell.
Dion appointed David McGuinty the environment critic in his shadow cabinet on January 18. McGuinty, first elected in 2004 and again in 2006, is a bilingual environmental and natural resource lawyer who was Executive Director of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for eight years. For some time now, GL has suggested that the environment ministry needs a minister knowledgeable in the issues and McGuinty certainly fits that requirement. A press release from the CPC on February 1 suggested that McGuinty was being muzzled by Dion again focussing attention on Prime Minister Harper's reputation as controlling his ministers from the PMO's office and staging events so as to prevent open access to the press. Use of the word "muzzle" which some say should be Harper's middle name can only reflect back a worse image. It turned out that David McGuinty can speak after all: when he asked John Baird, the Environment Minister, at the Bill C-30 (Clean Air Act) Committee meeting last week, how much the government has spent so far on the environment, the Minister had no numbers. However, the government is at least trying to position itself with environmental commitments such as the February 12 announcement from the Prime Minister that the federal government would give Québec $349.9 million for provincial projects reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution through a new fund called Canada ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change. This funding, and hopefully similar in other provinces, is conditional on approval of the Federal Budget.
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
OPPOSITION SUPPORTS KYOTO MOTION
The Leader of the Opposition, Stéphane Dion made the following motion in the House of Commons on February 1:
"That, in the opinion of this House:
(a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world's climate is changing as a
result of human activity and this poses the most serious ecological threat of our time;
(b) the government must reconfirm Canada's commitment to honour the principles and
targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety;
c) the government must create and publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's
greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments;
(d) the government must establish a 'cap and trade' emission reductions system and
regulations for industry; and
(e) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the
necessary action.
The yeas numbered 161 from the opposition parties of the NDP, Liberal and Bloc Québecois
The nays numbered 115. The Prime Minister was not present.
The House also voted and passed Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez's Bill C-288 Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act on Valentine's Day. Harper again was not present. (see also GL V11 N14)
Paid subscribers see links to original documents and references here.
****************************************************
FIRING OF CESD DISTURBING
The replacement of Johanne Gélinas with Ron Thompson as the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development by the Auditor General of Canada Sheila Fraser on January 29 was reported around the world. The only news about Canada on the electronic edition of the Taipei Times two days later referred to a Globe and Mail article saying that the environment commissioner had been fired because of her outspoken calls for action to be taken on climate change. The press release from the AG office said, "The Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, has appointed Ron Thompson, FCA as Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) on an interim basis, effective today. He will be replacing Johanne Gélinas, who is leaving the position to pursue other opportunities."
Canadians have a lot to be grateful for in both Sheila Fraser and Johanne Gélinas who, with their teams of auditors, have drawn to the attention of Parliament areas where the federal government has not been effective and efficient in implementing its programs. Unfortunately, the dismissal of Gélinas undermines transparency, which is why public watchdogs were established in the first place. When a senior official of such significance seems to have been forced out of her job, GL thinks that, despite supposed privacy issues, the public has a right to know more of the nature of the problem. Parliamentarians, to whom the Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development ultimately reports (through the AG) seem not to have received any hint of an impending problem. The timing is at an extremely sensitive time considering the New Government of Canada's past failure to commit to support Kyoto and the Commissioner's most recent report on lack of action on the Kyoto Protocol obligations.
There is confusion about whether there was a termination as Gélinas appears to remain an employee of the AG's office, though Fraser won't say whether Gélinas left the CESD position voluntarily or was fired from it. In her statement on January 30, Gélinas said she didn't know that she had been terminated and that "today's announcement from Mrs. Fraser was premature and came as a complete surprise to me."
An insider has indicated to GL that the problem was one of ego: Fraser did not appreciate the fact that Gélinas was getting more profile for her reports on Sustainable Development than Fraser was getting for her work. If this is correct then Fraser's star should go down more than a few notches in public esteem. In that case, that is not a privacy issue but an issue of very bad practice by a senior manager who should know much better.
Fraser has apparently also decided that the 2007 report of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development will not be published until 2008. A mini report, to satisfy legal requirements, may appear in 2007 but it will contain only a report on petitions and will not contain any assessment of the government's performance on Environment and Sustainable Development. Such a delay means that Canadians heading into a Fall 2007 or Spring 2008 Federal Election will not have any report on the Conservative Government's performance in areas of Environment and Social Responsibility.
Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty has introduced a resolution into Committee which, if it gets to the floor of the House and gets majority support, will remove the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development from the AG's office and establish the office as one reporting directly to Parliament. We applaud the proposal and urge all parties to support it.
****************************************************
AG MEETS WITH PARLIAMENT'S ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Fraser attended the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, chaired by Conservative Party of Canada MP Bob Mills, on January 30 to warn them of the pending press release and then again on January 31. The first meeting was originally in camera. Unlike her office which seems to be leak-proof, comments from the Committee were leaked to the Canadian Press through the Globe and Mail. Later the proceedings of that meeting were put on the public record anyway.
In her statement, the Auditor General said the decision to name an interim Commissioner was hers. Among some of her other comments which could be but which she did not connect directly to the dismissal were:
Opposition members raised the question of creating an independent commissioner which Fraser said was a decision which could be made by Parliament but repeated that an audit function has to remain separate from policy advice and evaluation of programs. She described the difference, "First of all, we look at how they actually developed the strategy and assess how they developed that. Then we will say, 'You have this strategy, and you have committed to doing X. Have you actually done it? Do you have a plan in place to do it?' But we do not comment on whether they should include consideration of this element or that element in their strategy. That would be going into the policy--future-oriented stuff--which we cannot do."
Taipei Times. Archives - Canada: Environment chief fired. February 1, 2007. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/02/01/2003347240/print
Statement by Johanne Gélinas. CTV. January 30, 2007. http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/2007/1/30/2697431.html
Auditor General of Canada. Auditor General Sheila Fraser appoints interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Ottawa, ON: January 30, 2007.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/media.nsf/html/2007cesd01e.html
Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Sheila Fraser: Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Ottawa, Ontario: January 31, 2007. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/07en01_e.html
****************************************************
THE MANDATE OF THE CESD
According to Environment Canada the CESD's Mandate covers four main areas:
The position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was created under a 1995 amendment to the Auditor General Act (An Act respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and sustainable development monitoring and reporting). Sustainable Development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Federal departments are to have sustainable development strategies which means the department's objectives and plans of action to further sustainable development. The Auditor General is required to report on various expenditures including whether money has been expended without due regard to the environmental effects of those expenditures in the context of sustainable development. Reports are presented to the House of Commons.
Under section 15.1(1) of the Act, the Auditor General appoints a senior officer called the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who reports directly to the Auditor General. The duties of the Commissioner are to "assist the Auditor General in performing the duties of the Auditor General set out in this Act that relate to the environment and sustainable development."
According to the Act amended in 1995, Section 21.1 "The purpose of the Commissioner is to provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting on the progress of category I departments towards sustainable development, which is a continually evolving concept based on the integration of social, economic and environmental concerns, and which may be achieved by, among other things,
(a) the integration of the environment and the economy;
(b) protecting the health of Canadians;
(c) protecting ecosystems;
(d) meeting international obligations;
(e) promoting equity;
(f) an integrated approach to planning and making decisions that takes into account the environmental and natural resource costs of different economic options and the economic costs of different environmental and natural resource options;
(g) preventing pollution; and
(h) respect for nature and the needs of future generations."
There is also a section on petitions to the Auditor General on environmental matters in the context of sustainable development related to the category I departments.
The Commissioner "shall make any examinations and inquiries that the Commissioner considers necessary" to monitor the extent to which the department met the objectives and implemented the plans set out in their SD strategies and replies of the Ministers to the petitions.
The Act says that "(2) The Commissioner shall, on behalf of the Auditor General, report annually to the House of Commons concerning anything that the Commissioner considers should be brought to the attention of that House in relation to environmental and other aspects of sustainable development, including" the extent to which the departments met the objectives and implemented plans, the number of petitions, their subject matter and status and recommendations to Ministers of departments which are not required to implement SD Strategies.
Statutes of Canada. Auditor General Act. Current as of December 10, 2006.
Environment Canada's Sustainable Development Strategy 2001-2003. Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD). http://www.ec.gc.ca/sd-dd_consult/factsheetCEED1_e.htm
****************************************************
HISTORIC DECISION TO CREATE CESD
On September 18, 1995, then Environment Minister Sheila Copps moved Bill C-93, An Act to Amend the Auditor General Act, to be read for the second time and referred to committee. One of the major election commitments of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Liberal Party in their election platform Red Book was to adopt "economic and environmental agendas that converge." The greening of government was to become a reality and the government wanted to be "held accountable for our environmental actions and our environmental planning. ...We are serious about these things because Canadians want a healthy country in which we and our children can work to achieve our aspirations."
The House of Commons Environment committee headed by Charles Caccia recommended that the CESD be a separate position. but Copps said the the government decided "to create the commissioner of environment and sustainable development not as a separate position but within the existing framework of the office of the auditor general as recommended in the minority report. This is not in any way to be seen as a retreat from our red book pledge. Indeed I believe it will prove to be an effective way of achieving our promise. The office of the auditor general has clout. When the auditor general speaks, departments of government listen. It is independent from government, it is well respected and it has the expertise, as we saw recently in its initial assessments of environmental auditing of the government.
For all these reasons I believe it can greatly enhance the government's auditing of its environmental performance. There is another advantage to this innovation. Within the work of the auditor general, issues of environment and sustainable development must be directly integrated into economic considerations. This kind of integration is what sustainable development must be about. It is not a separate vertical approach but rather a horizontal approach which must de facto involve every department of government."
Both Liberal and Reform Members of Parliament on the environment committee supported a CESD separate from the Auditor-General with the AG continuing to conduct environmental audits. However the Bloc Québecois filed a minority report to say it made more sense to put it under the jurisdiction of the AG, who at the time was Denis Desautels. He said his office already performed the prime responsibilities of an auditor general of the environment and spent $4.5 million on them each year. In the end, the BQ expressed dissatisfaction with at the lack of clout given to the CESD. Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) said the government had failed to adopt most of the 17 recommendations made by the committee such as empowerment of the commissioner to report much more than the AG would report adding only the petitions, the appointment of the CESD by the AG avoids problem of patronage but is not subject to the approval of Parliament and there is no parliamentary review every five years of the effectiveness of the work of the CESD. In response to the criticism that the CESD would have no ability to comment on policy, Clifford Lincoln, then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment, replied that by reviewing the department strategies for sustainable development, "Strategies for sustainable development as such obviously will touch on policy and programs because sustainable development is effectively how we integrate the economy to the environment within a framework."
House of Commons Debates. September 18, 1995.
****************************************************
NEW ZEALAND COMMISSIONER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
When Helen Hughes, the commissioner of the environment for New Zealand, the first country in the world to create such a position, appeared before the Canada's environment committee she said she would find it very difficult to operate without being able to look at government policy. She found it problematic that the Canadian model did not make provisions for the CESD to look to the future, but merely specify where the government has made an error, rather than tell the government where to go or how to get there.
New Zealand's Speaker of Parliament House announced in December 2006 the selection of Dr. Jan Wright, as the next Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, pending the motion endorsing her appointment is put before the House; the Governor General makes the appointment. She has a wide range of environmental credentials and experience. Wright will take over from Dr. J. Morgan Williams as of March 2007. According to the announcement, "The role of the PCE was established in 1986 to provide independent scrutiny, advocacy and advice with a goal of maintaining and improving the quality of New Zealand's environment. The PCE has the capacity to investigate, report and make recommendations on any matter where the environment may be or has been adversely affected. The PCE advises and assists Parliament to ensure that in the management of natural and physical resources, a full and balanced account is taken of all the issues relating to the environment. This includes the intrinsic values of ecosystems, the sustainability of natural and physical resources, the values placed by the people of New Zealand on the quality of the environment and the needs of future generations."
New Zealand. Office of Speaker. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment December 4, 2006. http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/Admin/Speaker/PressReleases/7/4/4/7444021a157541a78730702de205c9a8.htm
****************************************************
REPLACEMENT CESD
Johanne Gélinas was appointed Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in August 2000 and functioned with her team as a special unit within the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. She has an environmental background which includes:
Ron Thompson, the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, has worked with the CESD in the past year and has audited Crown corporations such as Farm Credit Canada, Officers of Parliament, managed the Edmonton and Vancouver offices of the AG, audited the three northen territories, and federal departments of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Previously he conducted the annual audit of Canada's financial statements and the Department of Finance and Treasure Board of Canada. Mr. Thompson received a Bachelor of Commerce degree in 1968 and became a Chartered Accountant in 1971. He was granted the FCA designation by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario in 2006. His expertise is related to financial rather than environmental matters.
With great respect to Ron, the CESD position is not about financial auditing. Just as one would not want a Chartered Accountant with mostly financial expertise to be reporting on the effectiveness of brain surgery techniques, so GL believes that the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development should have some applied experience from the environment and Sustainable Development field. GL hopes that a fully qualified replacement for Gélinas will be hired as quickly as possible.
Auditor General of Canada. Biographies of the Executive Committee.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/04execbio_e.html
****************************************************
A SERIOUS THOUGHT
Rather than our usual funny story, this issue seems to need a serious ending. So we offer an observation from Dr. Ludwig Kramer, formerly of the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission. Kramer will be one of the speakers at the University of Montreal training course mentioned in our Sustainable Technologies and Services Supplement.
Dr Kramer has observed that environmental law needs enforcement because "the environment dies in silence." Damage to the natural environment is often done without any parties having a legal interest in preventing it. Sometimes neighbours of a polluting facility or non-governmental organizations will pick up on defence but access to the courts and ability to seek remedies are limited. Therefore it is usual that it is a responsibility of government to protect the environment. Unfortunately these bodies often fail to meet their obligations.
****************************************************
For our Organizational Subscribers this issue is accompanied by our Sustainable Technologies and Services Supplement. Articles in this section include:
Bob Page: New Position
Book Publishing: Reducing Carbon Footprint
Alternative Silviculture
Americana
Training Course in International Environmental Law
Research Network for Business Sustainability
A Free International Comparative Legal Guide
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Copyright © Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment
119 Concession 6 Rd Fisherville ON N0A 1G0 Canada. Fisherville & Toronto
All rights reserved. Readers are advised to check all facts for themselves before taking any action. The Gallon Environment Letter (GL for short) presents information for general interest and does not endorse products, companies or practices. Advertising or sponsorship of one or more issues consistent with sustainable development goals is welcome and identified as separate from editorial content. Subscriptions for organizations $184 + GST = $195.04 includes monthly Sustainable Technologies and Services Supplement STSS ; for individuals (non-organizational emails and paid with non-org funds please-does not include monthly STSS): $30 includes GST. Issues about fifteen times a year with supplements. http://www.cialgroup.com/subscription
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx