“GrassRoots Recycling Network Home” at http://www.grrn.org/ has “Producer Take-Back” information.

While I'm a strong advocate of consumer responsibilities, I do prefer to see arrangements for the disposal of many things planned and ready to go before the product hits the market. Perhaps if we had more of this, everyhwere, it would begin to be reflected in the price we pay for consumer goods and manufacturers might think twice about the economics before selling junk into the marketplace. Especially if it meant having to deal with most of the product again soon after, or discovering that consumers too have learned if it's junk it's not worth buying.

Way to go BC - except for caving to the milk lobby in a senseless excemption for milk containers that we still have to throw out because the industry didn't want to be good citizens.

Matt, recyclable plastic milk containers have been tried but the problems created were considerable. In one place in Canada where it was tried people would store other products, (gasoline was a common problem) then rinse out and return the container for a credit. The chemicals permeated the plstic and then leached out into the milk when they were refilled. It was impossible to identify the containers before they were refilled. You can imagine anyones' reaction to a mouthfull of gasoline laced milk. It was deemed better to go with lighter plastic containers that can be returned and shredded. This eliminated a potential health hazard. Avalon dairy bottles milk in glass and their products are available in the lower mainland.

Perhaps, one of the consequences of "private sector efficiency" and less government control or regulation, is that some automobile repair garages often attempt to collect an "eco-fee" from customers, even when hazardous products are not used on that ocassion.

It is nice to now we are doing better than others, but we still have a long way to go. I have a few observations - one that regulation (which requires resources for enforcement, market incentives provided by government tax policy and producer responsibility initiatives need not be considered exclusive policy choices - we should use all three judiciously and in mutually re-inforcing ways. Complex regulations without enforcement and market incentives that are to small to induce behaviour shifts or that ignore negative "spillover" effects like illegal dumping, are both equally useless, or worse. Similarly industry-run programs are a great idea, provided that there are ambitious waste-reduction targets that ultimately MUST be met. All programs should be introduced as Alan Durning has argued before in, a long-term, committing and inexorable way with steadily rising disincentive fees, so industry and consumers can adapt over time, but not be any doubt that "ecological scarcity" is ever going to go away, and "free" pollution rights will ever be restored to them. A good portion of the revenue collected from eco-taxes has to be dedicated to education and proper enforcement, as well as invested in the development of more benign, "biomimicking" packaging technologies, but actual investment should be left to producers (subject to an incentive regime that strongly discourages sitting on their hands). I think local authorities should be quite a bit more agressive in demanding the "tools" from the Province that are necessary to do their job (as garbage disposer of last resort) as efficiently as possible, and brave enough to face the inevitable resistance to change from businesses and consumers. Finally, the benefits of complex policy reforms in this area need to be assessed over a suitably long-term horizon.

Philster - why not use the regular juice-like containers for milk? I've heard that the dairy industry lobbied not to do this not because of any difficulty with the containers, but rather arguing that it would add cost to an "essential" item?

I like the way we have put the onus on producers to get deal with particularly nasty hazardous materials. In terms of curbside recycling we still have a long way to go. In Ottawa, one can place the full range of plastics in the blue box (including bags) as well as styrofoam and the other usual suspects (paper, glass, tins). Additionally, they have also started to experiment with roadside pick-up of organic matter (all food stuffs including meat) and I understand they do this in some areas of Toronto too. Edmonton also has a great model of waste diversion and conversion.

Matt, in the lower mainland milk is currently available in recyclable plastic jugs that go into your blue bin after use. Maybe this type of packaging is just not available in your area, or the stores you frequent? Nowadays you can get milk in glass, plastic, waxed paper cartons, tetra paks (UHT milk), and cans (evaporated milk). Maybe I'm missing something, let me know if I don't understand.

It's the waxed paper cartons that our local recylcer does not take if milk has been in it (whether dairy or soy) - identical cartons it seems to me that juice could have been in. And, explanation given to me is that milk producers got an exemption based on political rather than logistical issues.

Okay, now I get it (I think). You want to see packagers of dairy products forced to use only returnable containers in the same way that this has been legislated for soft drink producers, liquor bottlers etc. here in BC, correct? I agree this sounds like something that should be considered. Meanwhile, I guess we can make our own choices depending on what is available to us when we shop.

BCUOMA has the responsibility to make every drop count as they say. Well why do they not count every drop. 10-20- Million liters of oil are being used for energy recovery in BC. Not a single liter is counted and BCUOMA will not even talk about it.Rather they spend thousands of dollars trying to tell BC residents that they are not being responsible and are dumping oil in lakes and streams maybe BCUOMA should count the oil and the problem goes away

BCUOMA has the responsibility to make every drop count as they say. Well why do they not count every drop. 10-20- Million liters of oil are being used for energy recovery in BC. Not a single liter is counted and BCUOMA will not even talk about it.Rather they spend thousands of dollars trying to tell BC residents that they are not being responsible and are dumping oil in lakes and streams maybe BCUOMA should count the oil and the problem goes away

BCUOMA has the responsibility to make every drop count as they say. Well why do they not count every drop. 10-20- Million liters of oil are being used for energy recovery in BC. Not a single liter is counted and BCUOMA will not even talk about it.Rather they spend thousands of dollars trying to tell BC residents that they are not being responsible and are dumping oil in lakes and streams maybe BCUOMA should count the oil and the problem goes away www.uoma.com has the answer

this isn't a comment but i'm a teacher in the toronto district and a question that im normally asked and wonder about is why do we need to make an effort of change? i really can give my students a highly answer to that.

To quote from the ever-running tv commercial about recycling: " ... it keeps less garbage out of the landfill ..." So ... if it takes less garbage out, it must be putting more garbage IN. What's the story?

sign up in your city at FreeCycle.org to post unwanted free items, or post an item you want to give away, great recycling idea

I have to say that I disagree with much of what is stated in the article. Unlike the author, who seems to believe that democratically accountable governments cannot deal effectively with waste management issues, while private multinational corporations can, I do not have the Panglossian faith in the ability of big business to self-regulate, nor do I believe that we are doing such a great environmental job here in BC.

The most important aspect of environmental responsibility is to reduce the production and sale of products that create waste. I do not see much evidence of this happening here in BC. When I go to the supermarket I see packages of all varieties on sale, very few of which can be recycled, and almost none of which can be reused. They do not seem to be fewer in number (or volume) than a decade ago.

Instead of reuseable containers, almost all of the beverage containers sold now are 'recyclable'. In addition, they now attract a compulsory recycling charge or levy. My understanding is that this tax on consumers is given back to industry (through organizations they sponsor and control) and used to operate their recycling depots. In other words consumers, not the packaging industry are paying the costs. It is not clear to me why the industry should get credit for funding which comes from consumers. Nor is it clear to me why this is such a great environmental accomplishment.

In light of this situation, where consumers are footing the bill (and which is based on recycling rather than more effective reduction or reuse strategies), I see little incentive for the industry to reduce its production and use of wasteful packaging, and even less evidence that this is, in fact, happening. Rather, what has been happening is that big business has been using its influence to shape international trade agreements to protect its 'right' to packaging its goods in a manner that best facilitates marketing and sales (as opposed to what makes good environmental sense). Efforts by governments to require reuseable containers have been challenged as 'barriers to free trade' and struck down by trade tribunals.

I might also point out that the track record of the private waste industry (which is distinct from the packaging industry) is iself very questionable, as anyone familiar with Harold Crook's book Dirty Business or Charlie Cray's excellent Greenpeace analysis of the industry will confirm. It is the private waste industry that has been insisting on its NAFTA based 'rights' to engage in the cross-border movement of waste, so that it can dispose of it in jurisdictions with the lowest environmental standards. It is the private waste idustry that has been promoting incineration so that it can sell its technology to gullible governments. I do not see much evidence of the private waste industry using its oligopolistic profits to support sound environmental programs.

In contrast, I think that some of the best waste reduction programs have been run by municipal governments such as those in Toronto during the period when Metro benefitted from commercial and industrial landfill tipping fees in the early 1990s. These programs focused on waste reduction, composting, reuse and comprehensive recycling, with the emphasis on the first of these alternatives. (Under the Harris government, with its focus on fiscal downloading, much of this got dismantled.)

In conclusion, I find that the analysis in the article reflects a neo-liberal view of the role of governments and private corporations. Governments are inherently bad and cannot regulate effectively in the public interest. Big business is inherently good and will protect our environment if we only give it a chance to do so. From this perspective, public policy should be based on getting government off the backs of the corporations, and letting them get on with managing our environment. Dr. Pangloss is alive and well. The problem is that some of us living in BC have failed to recognize that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

By the way, the last time I checked, I was still living in Canada, not Cascadia.