Clarington (and Durham) Meetings - Behind Closed Doors

A report was brought forward in the November 5th agenda entitled, "Meeting Investigator - Closed Meetings" which can be found on the Municipal website (CLD-036-07). This was obviously in response to Ontario ombudsman Andre Marin's comments during a panel discussion a couple of weeks ago on openness and transparency in government, where Marin said citizens should be furious with the business their local government does while squirrelled away from the prying eyes of the public.

Our local press has picked up on this story - read Metroland's "Residents will soon be able to investigate secret meetings" from November 8.

Starting in the new year, the Municipal Act allows any individual to request an investigation be undertaken to determine whether a municipality or local board or committee of either, is complying with the rules on what is allowed to take place during a closed or in camera meeting.

...The new rules mean either an investigator can be appointed, or, failing that, a review can be done by Ontario's Ombudsman's office.

At this point, though, Clarington councillors aren't sure of the best way to implement the new rules. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is offering a service, which would be billed hourly, based on $1,250 a day plus expenses. Or the Ombudsman's office can do the review -- but it's not yet known what, if any, cost will be associated with that.

Councillors say they want to ensure the Municipality isn't out of pocket to comply with the rules.

Perhaps they had better be more careful about how often they go "in camera" for discussions, which seems to be quite frequently according to agenda items listing "confidential matters". That may save money, but finding a way to limit people questioning these secret meetings or scaring them out of asking by saying they will be responsible for costs is limiting the intent of the Act, isn't it?

As with his other scathing reports, Marin is exactly right. Closed meetings are permitted under the Municipal Act, but only in select circumstances.

A property purchase or sale is permitted to go in camera, an understandable exemption to protect the integrity of the transaction. But many municipalities have stretched this to mean any matter dealing with property, and that includes renovation costs to buildings already owned by the government.

Legal advice is allowed behind closed doors, as is any discussion about an identifiable individual. The caveat is the debate is allowed in secret, but the vote must be public. It's amazing the way municipal governments get around this, voting on obscurely worded motions that give no idea about the issue being discussed.

That fact has been lost on local government. Just because the Municipal Act permits a council to retreat in camera, it doesn't mean council has to retreat in camera.

Maybe because Marin made these comments during a panel discussion and didn't put them down in a formal report, municipalities will sidestep the firestorm that met other Marin investigations. But they shouldn't.

Every municipal council in Ontario should pay close heed to what Marin is saying. And if the ombudsman gets it within his authority to formally investigate the in camera practices of municipalities, we'd suggest he take his investigation a step further, and look at the boards and agencies of municipal governments that are all-too-comfortable shutting the public out of their deliberations. Board chairs should be cognizant of what the rules are regarding public attendance at any local committees and boards and should not shut out or shut down residents when they ask to speak or even ask just to sit in on meetings. That is happening far too often.

How will Clarington Council deal with this? Time will tell. There will be a staff report within the next few weeks. Accountability and transparency are of utmost importance, and there is too little of that these days at all levels of government. Too many in-camera sessions, too many cryptically worded motions voted on afterward.

We hope they will come up with a fair solution that won't cost taxpayers an arm and a leg for unjustified queries from the public, but also will not stop justified questioning of the public meetings or the lack of information on what the meeting was about afterward, with the exception of names or particulars which should be kept private. It will be nice to see this policed for a change as it appears that the Act regarding closed meetings has been misused.

Of course this does not limit or hold accountable those politicians who do their dealings (lobbying) behind closed doors - the back-room deals and promises which are not made during Council meetings, but before meetings to garner required votes to pass a particular upcoming motion. I am speaking more of Regional Council in this vein. I so wish THOSE private meetings could be policed and made public! It most certainly would open the eyes of the public who don't realize this is common practice in some circles. More often than not we are left out in the cold when decisions are made before being brought to the public for so-called "consultation", and the Region only goes through the motions - such as with the Incineration EA for example. Now that one is a sham if I ever saw one, which is sad for the residents of Clarington and the entire Region.

This is why 'watchdogs' are needed. That includes the press, Andre Marin, the public and yours truly.

The Mayor is puzzled?

So, our Mayor is puzzled, astonished, surprised over Ajax's decision not to support the Region's plan to push an incinerator on Clarington/Durham Region without clear answers to the many outstanding questions that should have been answered before getting to this point in the process. http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/Durham/article/88270

We might use other terminology for the Mayor's confusion and position on this incinerator. How about baffled, befuddled, bewildered, dazed, discombobulated, disconcerted, disorganized, distracted, flummoxed, flustered, fouled up, glassy-eyed, gonzo, misled, mixed up, muddled, nonplussed, perplexed, perturbed, punch-drunk, punchy, screwy, shook up, slaphappy, spaced out, stumped, taken aback, thrown, unglued, unscrewed, unzipped... How about just plain wrong.

What is perplexing to me and to many others is how our elected regional representatives could so easily believe everything they are told by those who have a vested interested in having this incinerator built, without question, yet will not consider information and objections brought forward by:

• residents who have done their homework and presented documented reports, studies, concerns


• 16 Clarington doctors who have signed a petition declaring their health concerns as well as their opposition to this incinerator


• 43 Durham Region doctors who have done the same


• Peer Reviewers hired by the municipality of Clarington, at great expense to us, who have outlined shortcomings and problems with the EA studies to date on this project

How can they have such tunnel vision? How can they be so blind? How can they be so obtuse?

How can the Mayor continue to say that he has not made up his mind on whether Clarington should support this incinerator or not, all the while promoting it to everyone and every group he comes in contact with? All the while showing promotional videos from proponents, but never, not even once truthfully considering "the other side" of the story? Does he think residents of Clarington are as blind or as undiscerning or myopic as he is? This man is not a leader. He is a follower (of Mr. Anderson and cronies).

I will level this charge today at our two other regional representatives - Charlie Trim and Mary Novak. Both have also continued to say that they haven't made up their minds yet and are waiting for all the information to be in. Well, they have shown their true colours recently and there is no doubt where they stand either. Both are fully in support of this project, even without having all the answers. Even with having hardly any clear-cut answers at all.

There is no technology chosen to date, although Mr. Anderson has repeatedly said it will NOT be plasma arc or the newest tech since it is too expensive. Money before health and safety - is anyone surprised at that? Mass Burn is what is being seriously considered.

You may say, "how do you know?". Ask yourself, how did we know the preferred site would be not only in Clarington, but specifically in Courtice? How could we have known that more than a year ago? How did we know that no other alternatives would be seriously studied or looked at well before they made public that "thermal technology" would be the preferred option? How have we known before the "studies" have even been done, what each step would be?

We knew because it has all been pre-planned, pre-ordained. And Clarington has been the target all along, one reason being our uber-weak political representation. While the local councillors are still not willing to declare us an unwilling host, even though they by now have seen the shortcomings of the studies, the process, the beat-around-the-bush "spin" put on this whole project, the regional councillors have determinedly, unequivocally, and unmistakably supported the Region's "vision" to burn our garbage from the start.

Oh to be blessed with honest, intelligent, open-minded representation such as Ajax has. We can only hope for better choices in 2010, and will actively work toward that goal. That includes the "Elect the Chair" campaign. While we know our Mayor and 2 regional councillors will never support that, we can hope our local councillors come to their senses and push for election of the regional chair, as residents have repeatedly asked them to do.

A question to our Mayor and regional councillors - why is it that you promote the "new" incineration technology, which STILL cannot remove the harmful ultrafine and nanoparticulate from the stack emissions, but continue to talk about the "old" landfill technology, and will not admit that there is new technology in stabilized landfill that collects leachate, prevents it from contaminating our groundwater, can collect the methane gas produced and with technology can safely burn it for energy, and does not pollute the atmosphere the way incineration will? Even the Region's consultants admitted in their brief "alternatives to" study that the greatest impact on the airshed would be from incineration, not from landfill (not even from old-style landfill, which is the only type they "studied").

With all the lip service paid to global warming and climate change, our environmentally non-friendly Region of Durham (proven during the greenbelt debacle) wants to contribute even more through stack emissions to the problem.

And the claims that forest fires contribute more to greenhouse gases than incinerators is disingenuous at best. Naturally occurring forest fires are not remotely related to intentional burning of waste. There are better alternatives but those have not even been considered by this Council or the Region's Consultants. One more chink in the EA armour.

Our elected (and non-elected) representatives should err on the side of caution when it comes to our health. Also when it comes to the financial commitment. Use the Precautionary Principle, which is normally used first and foremost in the scientific community. It has been totally disregarded by not only the Region but by the consultants who are promoting the vision of the Region. Yes, there is a huge and ever widening credibility gap. Especially when questions are asked at the public information sessions and no clear answer is ever given - just a bunch of spin and non-answers. I have not spoken with ONE person who asked a question at a PIC who was satisfied with the answer they received. NOT because it was not the answer they wanted, as suggested by Mr. Cliff Curtis who is Commissioner of Waste... er, Works, but because they didn't get any answer at all. Just spin.

It is depressing to see what is happening to Clarington. It is more than depressing to see people putting their houses on the market already, so convinced are they that this will be pushed through in spite of what the final true answers are. It is a sad state of affairs for Clarington, for the Region of Durham, and for the GTA overall. It is depressing that seeing facilities that look "clean" in Europe seem to be the deciding factor, nevermind all the invisible emissions coming from the stacks; nevermind that their waste stream is different than ours; nevermind that we will not have the best available technology - we will have the most affordable technology. Nevermind that European standards are much higher than Ontario standards for emission control. Nevermind that Ontario has only guidelines, not requirements for emissions, and that while there may be a financial cost for exceeding limits placed upon incinerator facilities, many consider it simply a 'cost of doing business'.

Those who support this project should spend a little time doing some real homework. That includes our elected (and non-elected) representatives. It is more than obvious that our Mayor does not understand the EA process or how it works (or is supposed to work) at all. It is a process for ASKING questions of the proponents, and making sure those answers are received. He seems to object to all the questions being asked by residents and peer reviewers, since our Council is not asking the questions that need to be asked.

Also see Metroland articles and editorials:
Ajax council raises good questions on incinerator
Is Ajax standing up for Clarington’s interests?
Take a stand, Clarington, says incineration opponent
Energy from waste draws new faces

Durham Environment Watch - good source of information for incineration issues and media articles
Watchdog Incinerator Posts - previous posts regarding this incendiary issue

Public Info Sessions timed to discourage attendance

Clarington has been chosen as the preferred host municipality for a massive incinerator to burn mixed municipal waste. Courtice is the specific town where it will be located.

One Public Information Session was scheduled to be held in Bowmanville to ask for input on the preferred site (they have to ask, because of EA requirements, but they don't have to listen). Due to delegations to Clarington Council on Monday night and the Joint Waste Management Group on Tuesday (in Regional Council Chambers) complaining that there should be more than one Information Session in Clarington (there should be at least 3, according to most who noticed the shortcoming) and there should be sessions held in the host town - Courtice. The other complaint was the timing of the session - a drop in session from 2 pm until 9 pm on Wednesday (Oct 3) and a formal presentation from 9 pm until 11 pm. What a time on a weeknight! And where is the time for questions/comments from residents?

The Q&A session after the formal presentation has, at all the former Public Information Sessions held by Genivar/Jacques Whitford, been the most informative part of the presentation. These consultants are known by now to gloss over any of the negative impacts and promote anything positive they can find to say about this incinerator project. It is during the Q&A sessions that more information comes out. Asking a consultant one on one is quite different than listening to comments from other residents, and probing questions that are NOT being asked by the politicians.

Residents were assured at the JWMG meeting on Tuesday this week that the formal presentation on Oct. 3 would be moved to 8 pm from 9 pm (after all the delegations asked that it be moved to 7 pm like all the other presentations have been, and like the York Region presentation will be). It was reported in the Wednesday, Sept. 26 Canadian Statesman that the time would be 8 pm. In today's Clarington This Week, the reported time is 9 pm again. See how the previous information sessions were handled.

Are they confused themselves, or are they just trying to confuse us? They obviously don't want a good turnout as the advertising for this Public Session has been pitiful, and short notice, late hour, etc. Here is one more complaint about the PROCESS.

They have now added a second session, to be held in Courtice at Faith United Church on Nash Road on Tuesday, October 9 - at 8 pm. Still they couldn't be convinced to hold this one at 7 pm either. This looks to be intentional, not to give Clarington what it asks for. But then again, why start now?

More and more we are losing confidence in this bunch. That includes the Mayor and Regional Councillors from Clarington as well as the Regional Project Team and Consultants. Read the comments from people on my previous post. Yes, this Process is a failure. Why would we have any confidence in the conclusions they come to at the end of this flawed process?

By treating Clarington Council and Staff and residents so shabbily and thoughtlessly, they show how little our opinions count. Roger Anderson was correct when he said Clarington's views wouldn't matter in the Region's actions or decisions. He was not just talking about "the process". Will the tacky treatment of Clarington continue? It seems so. It seems to be escalating. Mr. Anderson has great difficulty in disguising his contempt for Clarington. I would submit that he no longer even bothers.

Do YOU have confidence in this process, as it has been handled to date? I look forward to your comments. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, although I won't change my mind until or unless things change BIG TIME. I don't think the political will is there to make the changes needed. Why does it seem that our Mayor and 2 Regional Councillors (Trim and Novak) are so afraid to stand up for Clarington and demand fair treatment? Why don't they appear to care about the voters/taxpayers of this municipality? Why are they willing to risk our health and well-being? I'd love to hear from any of them, but they also appear to be afraid to answer direct questions honestly.

Courtice is announced as preferred site for Incinerator

IS ANYONE SURPRISED???

How many times have we said over the last year or so that the preferred site would be in Courtice. How many people have said it was pre-determined and that Durham Region hired the consultants to steer the site selection toward the Courtice site right from the beginning (as well as steering away from any of the alternative technologies)?

Do we all have crystal balls, or was this plan just poorly disguised from the start? Then again, why bother to put much effort into disguising the intent when it makes no difference what Clarington voters, Clarington staff, or a few of the local councillors have to say. The Region has admitted time and time again that it doesn't matter. Last week's attempts at explaining away Chairman Anderson's comments at Clarington Council were puny and didn't hold water to anyone who has heard Mr. Anderson comment on the same subject countless times at committee meetings. He was not only talking about the EA process itself. Ask him point blank if it will matter to the Region if Clarington declares itself a willing host or not, in the end, when the Region decides they are going to put their beloved incinerator in our midst. The answer is no. He has admitted it many times over the last year.

Well, now the joke is on our Mayor and Regional Councillors in Clarington, as well as any others gullible enough to think this is an objective EA process. There are so many holes in it that there will be appeals upon appeals and the Province should start to listen, since those pushing this project through at both Regional and local levels of government had their minds made up years ago, in spite of their insistence that they are waiting for all the "facts". If Mayor Abernethy was remaining objective, why would he promote incineration to the Clarington Board of Trade by playing them a video from an EFW proponent? Why would he vote down any attempts at getting more information from the Region or vote against the Region having to pay whatever it takes for Clarington to do its due diligence? Why would Mary Novak and Charlie Trim do the same? Why would Abernethy be so happy about Courtice being chosen as the preferred site for this incinerator? If he thinks he will benefit from it, or that Clarington will, he is sadly mistaken, and his refusal to remain the least bit neutral will haunt him in the next election, if he even has any plans of running again.

So, residents of Clarington, are we at all surprised by any of this? The only things I am surprised about are the lackadaisical attempts at convincing us this EA process as it is presently being run is "transparent". We asked for fairness, transparency, honesty. Our politicians promised us these things. What do we get instead?

Talk about managing garbage! The "poo pumper" is certainly hard at work these days.

Clarington has no say on incinerator, says Anderson

Clarington has no say on incinerator, says regional chairman

Wed Sep 12, 2007
By Jennifer Stone (Metroland)

CLARINGTON -- Saying the municipality would not be a willing host to an incinerator proposed by the Regions of Durham and York would have "absolutely no effect whatsoever" on the process, Regional Chairman Roger Anderson told Clarington councillors Monday.

The chairman was one of a number of delegations speaking on the matter during the council meeting.

"It would be nice if we could have a willing host, but it is not essential," said Mr. Anderson. In fact, he said, that East Gwillimbury, the only other municipality with a potential site for the proposed incinerator besides Clarington, has said it won't be a willing host is neither here nor there. The site there remains under consideration, with a decision expected later this month on preferred site.

"It would be pretty easy to sit in front of all these folks ... and say, okay, I'm not going to be a willing host," he said, referring to the audience in council chambers, several of whom were on hand to voice their opposition to the proposed Energy From Waste plant. "Easy to say it now, but I don't know what you're going to say in 2011 (after the Michigan border closes to Ontario trash) because you're not going to have an answer."

There is nothing to the suggestion made by Clarington Councillor Adrian Foster that the Municipality is "Durham's ultimate waste solution," said the chairman. "We deem energy from waste as the ultimate waste solution," he said. But, there are alternatives to incinerating garbage which should be explored, some delegates told Council. Many touted a move toward zero waste, with some form of stabilized landfill until waste can be eliminated.

It's not like incineration will eliminate the need for landfill, said Kerry Meydam. "With the incinerator ... you still have that residual ash, and you still need landfill," she said. It is estimated about 30 per cent of what is sent into the incinerator would remain as bottom ash.

Zero waste, which would entail extending producer responsibility for their spent product. isn't terribly realistic, said others.

"Germany put in one of the most extensive producer responsibility systems ... but after the system was implemented, what they found was that they had huge and growing stockpiles of materials that could not be recycled," said David Climenhage. "I don't think that necessarily a zero-waste solution is something that can happen without many years and many new technologies in place to achieve it."

But, there is a need to look for other solutions, said others, some of whom were clearly disheartened by Mr. Anderson's comments.

"I'm not sure it really makes a difference whether I'm here or not," said Kristin Robinson. "It certainly seems like Mr. Anderson has made it clear my side won't be heard at all.

"I believe we can do better than burning our waste. I believe it is just a band-aid solution."

So, what do our readers think of this? Do you like being brushed off by those who presume to know what is best for all of us (like Anderson, Abernethy and our regional councillors who don't care what we have to say about it)? It is appalling that they will listen to their pro-incinerator/lobbyist/consultants but will not listen to doctors, scientists or residents (or those who are both), and won't bother to read medical journals or opinions of waste experts or even pretend to have any common sense at all?

What do you think about this? We do have the opinion of one Regional Councillor from a press release passed on to me from a group of residents earlier today. He hits the nail right on the head!

Clarington Residents Owed Apology over Remarks
“Regional Chair Anderson must respect taxpayers” says Councillor.

Oshawa—Oshawa Regional Councillor Brian Nicholson is urging Durham Regional Chair Roger Anderson to apologize to Clarington taxpayers for his disrespectful comments at Clarington Municipal Council on Monday, September 10, 2007.

Anderson is reported to have told Clarington Council that “saying the municipality would not be a willing host to an incinerator proposed by the Regions of Durham and York would have "absolutely no effect whatsoever" on the process”.

“I find that comment to be inaccurate, offensive and not helpful to the public consultation process”, says Councillor Nicholson, “We are currently in an Environmental Assessment process, we are holding public meetings in Clarington, and the taxpayers of both the Region and the Municipality are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars doing peer reviews. Why are we spending all this money if the input from Clarington Council and its residents will have “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the process?”

Nicholson continues, “As a member of the Regional Works Committee, I consider the opinions of the Clarington Council and the taxpayers of Clarington to be vital information in my decision making process. What is it about public comment and public participation that scares the Regional Chair? Is it possible that questions are being asked that he would prefer not be asked?”

Regional Council was asked in 2004, 2005 and 2006 to adopt a policy to add a pre-condition requiring any incineration site to be constructed must be located in a municipality that was a “willing host”. Council, led by Chair Anderson, ruled that any decision on “the requirement to be a willing host” was premature until the site selection process was completed and a host site announced.

“If it is premature to require a willing host prior to site selection, why is not premature to not require a willing host prior to site selection. Once again, we are seeing the rules change by fiat from the Chair rather than by Regional Council.”, claimed Councillor Nicholson. “If Chair Anderson wishes to have Regional Council take a position that states they will place an incinerator in a local municipality whether that municipality is a willing host or not, let him bring that forward to Council. In my opinion, he would have a rude shock if he did.”

This spring, Mayor Jim Abernethy of Clarington apologized to the Regional Chair on behalf of Clarington Council when the Chair was not allowed to speak to Clarington Council. It was said then that not allowing the Chair to speak and offer his views was an insult to the elected office of Regional Chair.

“ If not allowing the Regional Chair speak is an insult, then so is a statement by the Regional Chair that states that the opinions of the Clarington Council and its residents will have “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the process.”, claims Councillor Nicholson. “If one was wrong, then so is the other. Chair Anderson owes the Clarington Council, and more importantly, the residents of Clarington, Durham residents all, an apology for his comments.”

“The public consultation process must be above reproach, but it is becoming clear from comments such as those made by the Regional Chair, that the process is nothing more than a public relations exercise to limit the political fallout from a decision already made.”, Nicholson concludes.

For further information,

Regional Councillor Brian Nicholson
905-436-5603
bnicholson@oshawa.ca

Comments, anyone? I say Bravo to Councillor Nicholson and to the residents who continue to try to be heard. Pooh Pooh on Chairman Anderson for not even bothering to care.

Incineration Pros and Cons on Rogers Cable TV

Some interesting TV from Rogers Cable... Incineration Pros and Cons. WATCH TONIGHT!

The "Con" side was given last night by two excellent local Clarington activists, Dr. Deb Jefferson and Wendy Bracken on the "Talk Local" show with host Amie Bolahood. I learned more in that one hour than I did in attending all of Durham Region's public information sessions last year and this year. I've stolen the information on times and repeats from the new D.E.W. website, which is also chock full of information on the subject.

Tonight at 9 pm on Rogers Cable we will see Mayor Abernethy and Cliff Curtis speaking for the "Pro" side, with host Tom Calow. Even though Mayor Abernethy continues to try to tell people he has not yet made up his mind, nor has Durham Region, does anyone still believe him? Watch tonight and I predict you will see him determinedly defend the decision to ignore any and ALL other alternatives to incineration and support incineration, which he will call "Energy From Waste". He and Mr. Curtis will tell you how clean and wonderful the European plants were that they saw on their expensive trip to Europe ($192,000 of Durham Region taxpayer's money). They will tell you how they saw a daycare built right near an incineration plant, saw people hanging out their laundry in the shadow of a large incinerator, and how nobody protests or minds those invisible emissions from the stacks.

They will not, however, tell you that Europe's regulations are much more stringent than ours in Ontario, or that theirs is a much different waste stream than what will be fueling our hungry "made in Durham" incinerator, with much lower toxicity. They won't tell you that the EU is now reconsidering the use of incinerators and making the regulations even tougher, or that they are looking at other solutions. They won't tell you about the very real risk of nano-particles because they don't understand what they are or how they affect human health. It is a quite new science, and the Durham Region consultants didn't bother to include any of the primary papers or research on this very important aspect of incineration. They will give you half-truths and spin it just as the consultants have spun it to them, to make it all more palatable.

But it seems that there is a growing number of people in Clarington and Durham becoming more aware of the con side, which was not even touched on by the Region's consultants who were hired to promote incineration to the public, just as the European Magical Mystery Tour was designed from day one to promote incineration, not to show both sides of the issue.

The Mayor owes an apology to all those delegations over the past several months who have taken the time to research and to speak about alternatives - all those delegations he chose to ignore as they spoke of alternative solutions including increased waste diversion, stabilized landfill for the small amount of residual waste after separating organics out for composting and biologically and mechanically treating what is left, extended producer responsibility, and more.

An exact quote from the Mayor made on Tuesday evening...
"We have been hearing what they're saying; they've been saying basically the same message over and over again; 'say no, say no, say no, say no', but what they have not done is they have not given us an alternative."

So why wasn't he listening to all those delegations? We submit it is because he made up his mind long ago and is pushing hard for incineration, just like our influential and tunnel-visioned Regional Chair, Roger Anderson. Much of Regional Council has been convinced that this is a safe, clean, wonderful project that will be oh-so-good for Durham Region, if not for Clarington.

Why are they so afraid of the whole truth, instead of hand-picked "facts" that they are exhibiting in their consummately one-sided promotion of incineration.

They also talk about "state of the art" or newest technology, but we know it will be what is most affordable, not state of the art. Chairman Anderson told us that months ago at one of his committee meetings where a large number of residents were present. He said that "Plasma Arc", for example, is too new, too experimental, too expensive so it would not be one of the technologies even considered. Yeah, right.

Even the newest "scrubbers" will not remove nano-particles from the emissions stack before they are released into our already compromised airshed. They cannot remove all the toxins and then even those that are removed... what to do with that pesky leftover ash? Guess what... it will have to go to a LANDFILL.

Watch tonight and ask questions. Please watch the repeats of the Talk Local show (see times below) for a much more intelligent and in-depth discussion of what we're really looking at if we have this incinerator built here. A much more complete and honest discussion without the political spin that we've sadly, now come to expect.

From the DEW website NOTICE BOARD:

NEW Thursday, September 6/07 at 9 p.m. - watch Mayor Jim Abernethy and Cliff Curtis tonight at 9 pm - Rogers Cable TV. Program is "Talk Politics". It's a call-in show so people can call in to comment and ask questions.

NEW Thursday September 6/07 - If you missed Dr. Deb Jefferson and Wendy Bracken (Clarington residents) featured on the "Talk Local" (Rogers Cable) show on Wednesday evening at 9 pm, please take the time to watch a repeat episode at any of the following times:
Thursday - 12:30 AM, 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM
Friday - 10:00 AM, 8:00 PM
Sunday - 10:00 PM
Monday - 2:00 AM, 5:00 AM
Tuesday - 8:00 AM

Monday, September 10, 2007 - Incineration Peer Review Reports 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Municipal Administrative Centre40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON - Council meeting (open to public)Decision on Clarington Peer Review Report on Incineration EA processIf you wish to appear as a delegation to speak on this item or your feelings on siting a large incinerator in Clarington to burn Durham Region's garbage (along with some of York Region's) as well as bringing in garbage possibly from Peterborough, Port Hope and other areas outside Durham Region, contact the Clarington Clerk's Dept. (905-623-3379) on or before 4 p.m. on Friday, September 7th. A preferred site will be chosen near the end of this month so it is important to be heard.

New Website for Incinerator information

There is a new website with lots of information regarding "Incineration" or that term our politicians so love to use, "Energy From Waste".


The website is called DURHAM ENVIRONMENT WATCH or D.E.W. Looks interesting with credible information. It appears that Durham residents are getting fed up with the treatment they receive as well as the lack of understanding or care for the environment from Durham Region politicians (remember the recent greenbelt fiasco?). Once again that same bunch seem to be a 'retrograde council' or 'bastard child of the 905' (Toronto newspaper terms describing Durham Region) where it concerns environmental issues.



We hope those politicians will take a little bit of time to read some of the material on the site instead of following the infomercials put out by the regional consultants and European incinerator owner/operators.



Something I found very interesting, especially since those holier than thou politicians who took the Magical Mystery Tour to Europe are so fond of telling us all how wonderful the European countries are in their waste diversion efforts - getting all the way to 88 or 90% diversion. They fail, however to say that this rate is AFTER they burn most of their municipal waste. They have an even more pitiful diversion rate than Clarington (42% according to Durham Region). Europe-wide their rate is only 33% (before incineration). Does incineration cause lower diversion rates? We've been saying all along that it does. It's the wrong direction to take, and now the European Union seems to agree!

INCINERATION UNDER SCRUTINY IN EUROPE - In February 2007, the European Union redrafted its waste protocol to make diversion a priority. A crucial point for the Members of Parliament was to reduce the amount of landfill and incineration, both of which cause pollution. Members rejected the idea that incineration be regarded as recovery. This should have major ramifications for the incineration industry as Europe-wide, only 33% of waste is diverted by recycling or composting.

Do we really want to go where Europe has been? Why not take a cue from them as they have learned something from having all those incinerators. Those incinerators are polluting just as landfill does, and they must reduce BOTH landfill AND incineration.



Read the articles. You may become enlightened.

Integrity is not a conditional word

July 30, Bowmanville, ON

Protest against Council's refusal to LISTEN.
"Say NO to INCINERATION"

Much has happened recently regarding the Durham Region "Incineration Issue". A peer review report from Clarington Staff and presentations by peer reviewers were scheduled to be heard on Monday, July 30, 2007 at Clarington Town Hall. A special GPA and Council meeting had been scheduled for that day, with the peer review report being promised to residents on the Thursday prior to that date. Of course that never happened. The presentations and report were pulled from the agenda, despite claims by the Mayor that they were never on the agenda.

Residents of Durham Region put together a protest on short notice, showing they do not accept the treatment they have been receiving from Clarington OR from the Durham politicians. And the discontent seems to be growing and spreading far beyond just Clarington's borders.

At the meeting in Council chambers, more excuses as to why the report was pulled by the CAO - he didn't receive it by Tuesday at 4:30 pm so could not sign it on Wednesday. He did receive it on Wednesday morning, and of course could not have taken one more day to read and sign it and still allow it to be available to the public by Thursday, or Friday, or even Monday. Or even this week.

The deadline for the commenting period for the Municipality and the public was to be on July 31. This peer review report was important information for residents (and municipality) to assist in knowledge when commenting on Generic Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment Report by the Region's hired guns... er... consultants. At the meeting on July 30 delegations were told very publicly that the commenting period for both the municipality and the public had been extended. Apparently another bit of untruth or misinformation as a letter to some of the delegations and interested parties on Thursday, August 2, stated that, "The commenting period deadline of July 31,2007 has not been extended for the Municipality of Clarington or the Public." Just one more slap in the face to residents of Clarington and of Durham Region. Conflicting information continues to come from the Region, from Clarington, from the EA Project Manager. Do any of them have any idea what is going on? - And yet another version by Cliff Curtis from the Region saying that the EA Project Manager was wrong and the commenting period has been prolonged. They just can't seem to get their stories straight... And what good does the commenting period being prolonged do if we can't even read the report that we've paid for and are entitled to?

Everyone already believes that the decision has been made (was made long ago, just like the decision to go with EFW and ignore all other -better- alternatives), and that the preferred site has already been chosen and that mass burn incineration is the technology planned to be used. There is no trust in our region or municipality as far as honesty or integrity at this point. Their claims that incineration is risk-free, that it is a good thing, the best thing, that it will not impact our recycling program, that it will make all that garbage (resources) disappear without consequence and will give us extra electricity ALL RING HOLLOW.

The peer review and due diligence reports are being paid for by us - the residents of Durham Region. At least the first $250,000 worth. The next $250,000 worth will be covered either by Durham Region (us again) or by Clarington alone (still us). But what is the point of paying all this money for these independent due diligence and peer review studies that were supposed to be completely independent of Durham Region, and for Clarington's benefit - if Durham gets to adjust or re-work or influence in any way what is contained in those reports? What is the point of paying for these studies if we (the public) are not even allowed to see them until they've been vetted by the Region?

The entire process has now been tainted. Integrity is not a conditional word. It doesn't blow in the wind or change with the weather. Except in Durham and Clarington. One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised. Except in Durham Region and Clarington.

To Regional and Clarington Councils - Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity. Allow the residents of Clarington access to the reports they have asked for, fought for and paid for.

Show some integrity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Durham Waste Coalition:
For information on incineration send a blank email to: DurhamWasteFAQ@Hotmail.com

To register to receive updates and information send a blank email to: DurhamWasteReg@Hotmail.com , and pass this information to friends and family.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

European Magical Mystery Tour

Incinerators are an unsustainable and obsolete method for dealing with waste. As global opposition to incineration continues to grow, innovative philosophies and practices for sustainable management of discards are being developed and adopted around the world.1 Except in Durham Region, where the soupe du jour is INCINERATION.

So sad that on a day when the world is celebrating "Live Earth" on 7 continents, our Durham politicians and staff are in Europe trying to find justification for their blind commitment to burning our garbage and sending it into the air instead of into the ground. I wonder if they have caught any of the Live Earth concert promos or messages regarding global warming and greenhouse gasses. It's big in Europe...

Again, the image of "retrograde council" comes to mind. Whether dealing with greenbelt or greenhouse gasses, it's an apt description of the majority (so far) of our Regional representatives, and especially our 3 Clarington reps. They pretend to care but then go ahead and promote incineration, finding all the excuses they can to tell residents that it is safe, clean, and there are no other options. It is good to know that they could find consultants to promote their cause, and that they are unburdened by accuracy or integrity when spewing the magic bullet solution to the rest of us.

Our Durham Pols keep telling us we must have a "Made in Durham" solution, and not send our garbage outside of our borders. Hmmmm. How do they plan on containing it when they send it into the air (emissions)?

“The latest scheme masquerading as a rational and responsible alternative to landfills is a nationwide — and worldwide — move to drastically increase the use of incineration...The principal consequence of incineration is thus the transporting of the community’s garbage — in gaseous form, through the air — to neighboring communities, across state lines, and indeed, to the atmosphere of the entire globe, where it will linger for many years to come. In effect, we have discovered yet another group of powerless people upon whom we can dump the consequences of our own waste: those who live in the future and cannot hold us accountable. It is still basically a Yard-a-Pult approach. [‘The Yard-a-Pult, invented for a “commercial” on the U.S. television comedy show Saturday Night Live, invites disposal of waste by catapulting it over the back fence into the yards of nearby neighbors.’]”
— then U.S. Senator Al Gore, 1992

The Durham Regional Council promised that they would not employ any technology that would cause any harm to residents. Yet they seem to feel it is unreasonable for us to hold them accountable for their actions. WE DO hold them accountable. For this unnecessary trip (not the first "incinerator tour" for some of them, with us paying the freight yet again). For continuing to spend dollars on a solution we don't want and that WILL cause harm to all of us, but more so to our children and their children. They could easily have gotten much more information on incineration from medical journals and scientific texts available on-line. What will they see in Europe? Emissions are invisible to the naked eye. I guess out of sight, out of mind.

"A meeting was scheduled with the director of the German Waste Association and they toured an EFW facility in Zurich, Germany." I hope they found it alright, since I always thought Zurich was in Switzerland. They must have been late for that meeting - could be still looking...

Our Regional Rocket Scientists "...poked around neighbouring homes and talked to some residents. Mr. Anderson said people had clothes out on the line next door to the incinerator, a reflection of the low level of concern over the facility. "

Oh gosh, that makes me feel so much better! And from a Metroland News article:

In Copenhagen, there was a townhouse complex within 200 metres of the EFW facility. They met with a man who had lived there for 30 years and another who had just moved in.
"We asked about depreciation of property values and if there was odour," Mr. Anderson said. "They didn't have any concerns about it. It is just the accepted way of dealing with waste here."

Oh my. The science is staggering. Incineration MUST be safe. And not only does the EFW project continue to roll on toward Clarington, but since York has backed out of the deal, Durham Region is soliciting other municipalities outside of Durham for their garbage, since we need enough to fill this oversized garbage burner. We won't send our garbage outside of Durham Region (except by air emissions), but we will welcome garbage from Peterborough, Northumberland, York, etc.

And why is Clarington being targeted? Well, because we have become known as a "politically weak community". There are many good reasons to stop this insanity it in its tracks. The main one is "emissions".

Builders and engineers of incinerators often respond to questions about pollution by asserting that “air emissions are under control” in the newest generation of “state of the art” waste burners. Underlying their claims are three unsupportable assumptions. First is the assumption that there are acceptable emissions levels for all the pollutants released by incinerators; second, that incinerator air emissions are now being accurately measured; and third, that emissions, even as currently measured, are within the limits currently defined as “acceptable.”
(1Waste Incineration, A Dying Technology; also see GAIA - Global Anti- Incinerator Alliance AND Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives)

Look at the Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment that has just been done for this incinerator project. Full of "assumptions". All it is is assumptions. Are you willing to risk your health and your family's health on unproven and unprovable assumptions? I'm not.

CHALLENGE to Clarington Councillors/Mayor who took the trip: Since we are paying for the "incineratourists", I would think that taxpayers are entitled to have these our Councillors (not staff - COUNCILLORS/Mayor) produce a "compte-rendu" of their findings, not something filled with typical platitudes but something substantial. If they say that they cannot, then how do they have the intellectual capabilities to assess what they saw?

It's hard to see the truth through all the smoke

Another great column by John Barber at the Globe and Mail. If only our Regional Councillors could see it so clearly...

The Globe and Mail
Sat 23 Jun 2007
JOHN BARBER

There's nothing like a good, clean hit to enliven either a hockey game or a public debate, and Peterborough consultant Clarissa Morawski landed a beauty this spring when she looked at the emissions data for the necklace of large garbage incinerators our suburban neighbours plan to build around Toronto.

The data, supplied by the vendors of incinerators and published as an appendix to the environmental assessment of the plant that Hamilton and Niagara Region hope to build, showed an entirely different picture from the rosy propaganda the vendors and their agents had spun about their wondrous technology.

Unlike the old incinerators that were once considered safe - until they weren't - the new ones are said to be advanced "energy-to-waste" facilities that turn household waste into clean energy. But the data submitted by the vendors themselves showed that this new technology was one of the dirtiest imaginable ways to produce power - far worse even than coal-fired power plants in terms of heavy-metal and greenhouse-gas emissions.

"I was absolutely shocked that incineration is still under consideration, given the pollution profile alone," Ms. Morawski said at the time. So were a lot of people when she published her findings in Solid Waste Magazine. In the time since then, concerns about the huge costs and potential hazards of incineration have led Halton Region to cancel plans to build a facility, while Niagara and York are slipping free of the partnerships they once entered to do the same.

But Hamilton and Durham still appear determined to go it alone with their big burners, doubling down on what their counterparts considered a losing bet. They do have one new advantage: The inconvenient facts that helped deter the others no longer exist.

Within weeks of Ms. Morawski's critique, the "comparative emission study" she relied on disappeared from the website documenting the Hamilton-Niagara environmental assessment. Within months of the date one of the facilities is scheduled to be built - thanks to the McGuinty government's recent decision to fast- track incinerator projects - there is no agreed-upon data about what will come out of their stacks.

The reason, according to the consultant who advised that the data be "taken down," is that they were incorrect. "We've found more recent information that corrects it," said David Merriman of Genivar Inc., the firm advising both the Hamilton and the Durham teams on their projects. The Niagara document, which was posted for more than a year, was only a draft, according to Mr. Merriman.

"We found, having posted it, there were some incorrect things," he said. "We removed it and we're now working on a corrected version that we will be presenting in September."

Mr. Merriman wouldn't say when he discovered the data was incorrect, but acknowledged the review was inspired in part by incinerator vendors "who told us the emissions coming out of the new technologies are lower than they have been historically."

So they get to supply new numbers, based on their fondest hopes for the very latest technology, to update the image of facilities that were once considered state-of-the-art, low-emission power plants - until they weren't, sometime last week, at which point they reverted to being dirty old mass-burn incinerators.

Technology advances - and so does the tricky business of calculating greenhouse-gas emissions, which represent another image problem for the nasty old incinerators that were so clean and modern last week. Thus the consultants also plan to introduce new, radically downgraded estimates about their carbon-dioxide emissions to replace the ugly numbers that disappeared.

The change is necessary not because there is new technology that reduces carbon emissions from garbage burners, according to Mr. Merriman, but because there is new thinking about how to count them. The actual emissions will stay the same, but the numbers reported in September will likely be halved.

Incinerator vendors have long supported such an approach, which is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to calculate national carbon inventories - and assumes, among many other things, that all the paper and wood burned as garbage will come from renewable sources. But applying such factors to emissions from actual burners with real smokestacks is highly controversial.

"It's totally inappropriate that anyone would apply IPCC guidelines when measuring emissions from thermal stations," Ms. Morawski said. "We just want to know what comes out of the stack."

But we no longer do - and likely never will, if the new arithmetic prevails and reported carbon emissions fall dramatically this September. In the meantime, numbers swirl headily behind the scenes.

What a spectacle. It's enough to make you realize why the McGuinty government exempted garbage incinerators from the Environmental Assessment Act. Learning the truth about them is such a confusing business.

jbarber@globeandmail.com

Clarington Report Card

"Single issue proving divisive for Clarington Council"

The Metroland Report Card evaluation has been published for our Clarington Council, and while it hits pretty close to the heart of the matter, we might have judged some things slightly differently.

" This year’s grade: C "
" Last year’s grade: B+"

" Clarington council has gone from one extreme to another since its last report card came out one year ago."

"In 2006 we were looking at a slate of seasoned councillors led by a multiple-term mayor who ran the municipality very smoothly but with an iron fist. They had a plan and acted as a cohesive group."

Not sure they were actually so much a cohesive group as a group ruled by a mayor who truly ruled with an iron fist. There was little or no debate about anything. What the mayor said was what was done, period. It appeared that he ruled with TOO MUCH of an iron fist, and that is also not good for the municipality nor for staff or council or residents. Residents were also ruled by an iron fist, many times with intimidation and rudeness. That is not really a good scenario for anyone.

"But the election last year changed the makeup of council and brought new views to the table. Not only do we have three new councillors but also a new mayor in Jim Abernethy."

"While this new crew provides fresh perspective at council meetings they also bring with them a big learning curve. We expected a few hiccups but also for the mayor and each new councillor to do everything they could to learn the job and represent constituents in a fair and reasonable way. So far they’ve done just that."

We agree that the new councillors have done their best to represent their constituents in a fair and reasonable way, but cannot quite say the same for the Mayor with his flip-flops from campaign promises and his unreasonable "landfill or incineration" stance. There are other choices and he won't consider looking at any of them. He also won't accept that incineration does not eliminate landfill, it just puts different materials (ash) into the landfills, including toxic ash that must be shipped to a special facility as it is hazardous waste. We feel the Mayor has not yet realized that he should be representing the PEOPLE, not just the region.

"However, the hiccups that have occurred have been hard to ignore."

"Mayor Abernethy’s absence at the first session of the GTA Mayors and Chairs was unbelievable. Here was a first-time mayor who had zero council experience before being elected. His absence was noticed throughout Durham Region."

It was certainly noticed by residents as well. A very bad start.

"But give the mayor his due, he has settled into the job in recent months and has gained focus. His timing couldn’t have been better because one of the biggest issues ever to hit the municipality has reared its ugly head -- the proposed EFW facility or incinerator as many residents put it."

He certainly has gained focus, but the focus seems to be on incineration and on doing the region's bidding, to the exclusion of most everything else. He appears to have become closed-minded on anything connected to the region, in favour of the region and not of Clarington. While the Statesman gave the Mayor a B-, we would give him a C at best, for now.

"This is one of the issues that requires strong leadership from the mayor because it’s clearly dividing councillors into two camps -- regional versus local."

Strong leadership yes. Tunnel vision, no.

"How else can you explain local councillors Gord Robinson, Willie Woo, Ron Hooper and Adrian Foster’s refusal to allow Regional Chairman Roger Anderson to speak at a recent council meeting regarding EFW?"

The local councillors are listening to the people. The regional councillors (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) are not. They are gung-ho on the region, the region's vision, the region's everything, and are forgetting about what is best for Clarington. The region is NOT always right (remember the greenbelt?).

"They claim it was meant to send a message to Regional council but the message was lost in translation."

We don't think anything was lost in translation. The regional councillors are treating the local councillors like they aren't important, like they shouldn't have any say in things that occur at the regional level, that the regional councillors are above the local councillors in importance, knowledge, and everything that matters. They don't even bother to let the locals know what is going on at the region, and they make motions and resolutions in the name of Clarington without even having them first approved at Clarington Council level. That is just plain WRONG. And we all know that there was no new information for council forthcoming from Chairman Anderson beyond what was already known (the short-list of sites). He was there for one reason only - to send a "message" to the local councillors that they would be allowed $200,000.00 for any peer review studies and no blank cheque. That they would do what the region told them to do and nothing more. That they are at the mercy of Regional Council.

We feel that the local councillors had every right to bully the bullier right back. It was not an easy thing for them to do as very few ever stand up to our unelected regional chair. We must give them credit for doing so, and for trying their best to get the money needed for Clarington to have an independent peer review done of the region's consultant's work, which is badly needed. The region still wants to tell Clarington which studies they can do and which are important or not important to Clarington. We believe Clarington (and Clarington Staff) are in a much better position to decide what is best for Clarington than Durham Region is. We would give all four Local Councillors a B to B+. They need more information to do their jobs, and they are trying their best to get it, with no help from the Mayor or 2 Regional Councillors. We would certainly not deduct any marks for their "message" that was sent not only to Chairman Anderson, but also to their colleagues, Abernethy, Trim and Novak.

"This is an issue council must be united on and stifling debate indicates this is a fractured group. It’s imperative that Mayor Abernethy and Regional councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak try to find some common ground with their colleagues before this debate scars council for good."

The local Councillors didn't stifle any debate. There is plenty of debate on this issue. Chairman Anderson was not present for "debate". He was there to send his "strong message" as he stated at an earlier Regional Committee meeting. We've been told by reliable sources he made his intentions very clear at that meeting. It is the Regional Works Chair (Trim) and Mayor Abernethy who seem to want to stifle the debate, reducing it to the false choice of "landfill or incineration" again and again.

It is imperative that the Mayor and two regional councillors start treating their colleagues at Clarington Council as equals, making sure they have all the information from the region that affects Clarington. It is imperative that they become a bit humble, and realize they are ALL paid by the residents of Clarington, and that includes Chair Anderson. They work for us and they should listen to us. They need to be reminded every now and then it seems. They do not seem to realize how this all looks to residents who see them leaving out the residents as well as the Local Councillors at every turn. We would give Novak a C for a grade so far this term, with Trim receiving a C- for his short fuse and kowtowing to Regional interests over Clarington interests.

"For his part Regional Chairman Roger Anderson has attempted to be as helpful as he can when it comes to EFW."

We disagree with this statement. Regional Chairman Roger Anderson has attempted to drive the process to conform with his personal "vision" and preferences. He refuses to listen to the concerns of residents and continues to try to denigrate them when they have the audacity to speak up as delegations to voice their concerns. This unelected Chair drives Regional Council, not the other way around. One more excellent reason to reconsider direct election of the chair by the residents of Durham. He doesn't feel he needs to be accountable to us as we don't have the opportunity to vote for him. He doesn't care what we think, only those at the regional level who can continue to appoint him to the top job in the region.

"There have been numerous public meetings on the issue and he’s been an active participant in most, if not all of the discussions on this technology."

Oh yes, a far too active participant in his efforts to stifle any opposition to his "vision", while trying to appear that he is listening to residents. The EA process demands the public information sessions that are being held. It is not at the request of the Chairman. He has no choice in the matter. He attends some (not all) of the meetings as they are an opportunity to put his spin on the subject.

"In turn, regional councillors have been supportive of the chairman in the knowledge that you have to show respect to receive it in return."

Respect? That's not respect...

We hope things change in the coming months and years. The split is a problem for Clarington but we lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Regional Councillors (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) with their behaviour toward both the Local Councillors, Staff (not supporting their request for necessary independent studies that were larger in scope than the region wanted) and residents (asking them banal questions in an attempt to discredit their viewpoints).

To her credit, Novak has not declared her undying support for incineration for Clarington, but her actions at Regional Council do show that she is supportive of the Regional Chair's "vision", or so it appears. Again, she does not want to listen to residents and makes it clear when she walks out of meetings when locals are presenting as delegations, as does Mayor Abernethy. We have come to expect such rude behaviour from some of the Regional Councillors such as Councillor Johnson for example, but not from our own Clarington representatives.

Something has got to change, but the blame cannot be laid at the feet of our Local Councillors who seem to be at least trying to do their best for our municipality with poor treatment and lack of information from our 3 regional representatives.

We look forward to an awakening by those three and an effort to work together for the benefit of Clarington rather than only the region in the future. Is it conceivable that over the summer recess they may come back with a renewed vision for Clarington and an ability to work with, rather than 'above' our Local Representatives?

Whoosh! Grand incinerator plans go up in smoke

JOHN BARBER - Globe & Mail
June 14, 2007

Last week, all the regional governments surrounding Toronto were quietly, almost imperceptibly backing away from their grand schemes to "demonstrate leadership" by burning their garbage in allegedly high-tech incinerators. Today they're running, their tiptoe retreat becoming a heel-flashing rout.

First to bolt was York Region, which formally abandoned a long-established partnership with its neighbour, Durham, to build and operate a $250-million mass-burn incinerator on an equal basis.

Instead of paying for half the facility and agreeing to use half its capacity, York has proposed instead to contribute 12 per cent of the cost of building a Durham-owned burner -- and to reduce its obligation to stoke the thing accordingly. Meaning it will never be built.

Yesterday, Halton Region outpaced York when its planning committee, led by new regional chair Gary Carr, voted unanimously and definitively to cancel its once-grandiose plan to build a large incinerator to burn garbage from across Greater Toronto. Halton saw red flags everywhere and responded promptly with a white one.

Today, officials on the other side of the lake are meeting to formalize the divorce of another two regional partners -- Hamilton and Niagara -- who until recently have been happily planning to build a burner together.

Niagara was actually the first of all the regions to recognize the folly of incineration and to change course. Its desertion means that Hamilton, like Durham, is now on its own with a project that just became hundreds of millions of dollars more expensive and far riskier than it first appeared.

The risk factor alone is unmanageable. If nobody can guarantee a supply of burnable garbage - or agree to pay penalties when there's not enough of it to keep the fires lit - nobody will build an incinerator. The United States is crowded with jurisdictions that signed "put-or-pay" contracts to encourage the construction of unnecessary incinerators - and paid handsomely when there wasn't enough garbage to put.

The fear of not being able to "turn off the tap" at a garbage-hungry burner is one reason why Niagara has changed direction, according to regional waste management director Barry Friesen.

"The public has been sold that this is a silver bullet to solve the waste problem," Mr. Friesen said. But it's nothing close to that, he added, emphasizing that incinerators worldwide act as barriers to future waste diversion.

While not formally abandoning Hamilton, Niagara has decided to let someone else take the first shot.

Halton cancelled its plans for the same reasons, according to Mr. Carr, with local public-health authorities intervening effectively. The region has enough landfill capacity to last decades, he said, and it made little sense to commit for decades to a hazardous technology that is said to be rapidly evolving.

"This is a new administration, a new chair and a new council with a whole different attitude to it," Mr. Carr said. Yesterday, they proved it dramatically - demonstrating leadership by deciding unanimously not to build an incinerator.

In truth - and as always in such affairs - it is Toronto that led the fight and deserves most plaudits for the sudden, surprise victory.

As long as Toronto had no place to put its garbage, its refusal to incinerate was considered backward by the suburban smart set who thought they knew a thing or three about modern technology and "acceptable" levels of air pollution. But that smugness evaporated when Toronto acquired its own profitable landfill - and so did the market for potentially burnable Toronto garbage.

It may take a few more months for the last stragglers to depart the late field of battle, but the result is unquestionable. Abandoning their hidebound ideas and irrational prejudices, local politicians throughout Greater Toronto are leading the way on a better path.

jbarber@globeandmail.com

EA: Critique of the Waste Disposal Project

Guest Blog by Paul-André Larose, Ph.D., Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. Submission to Durham Joint Works/Finances & Administration Committee on Tuesday 2007/06/12
- - -
EA: Critique of Reports 2007-J-24 and 2007-J-25 (Waste Disposal Project)

I - Introduction

Members of the Durham Joint Works/F&A Committee and members of the Audience, my name is Paul-André Larose. I reside in Oshawa.

You should know by now that I have a Ph.D. in Physics and that, as a scientist and resident of the Durham Region, I am extremely concerned by the proposal to build an incinerator in the area.

At this point, I should state that I am well aware that some of you take a dim view of people like myself who want to assist BEFORE the shovel gets in the ground. Personally, I would welcome the opportunity of someone trying to assist me on an issue, rather than to reject or ignore it.

For the purpose of this meeting, I will intentionally skip all the known scientific facts that I have previously attempted to articulate about incineration and instead, venture into the world of economic wizardry, i.e. focus on some economic considerations.

Once again, we will see that the NEWS IS NOT GOOD on the incineration economic reality.


II – On Report 2007-J-24

This report stresses that the emphasis will remain on the residential aspect.

Province-wide, the report points out that the waste generation amounts to 14 MTY (million tons/year).

Of this there is 4.6 MTY diverted (presumably recycled) leaving 9.4 MTY requiring disposal.

Of this, some 6.2 MTY are ICI and 3.2 MTY are residential in origin.

This corresponds to 1.1 tonne/year of waste/garbage being generated by each and every resident of this province.

I ask the Works Committee members: do you not feel that it would be better to address the preposterous amount of waste rather than to try to get rid of it through incineration?

Let us put things in perspective and look at what this means at the individual or household level. This corresponds in total (i.e. including recyclable and ICI materials) to 40#/person/week or 160#/week for a family of 4 (or 320# where garbage is picked up every two weeks).

Thus, the two reflections that come to mind are:

1. This level of consumption (and the waste disposal problem that it thus creates) is nothing but OBSCENE.
2. There is twice as much of an issue in the ICI area as in the residential one.

Not only is the ICI waste stream twice as large as that of residential, but much of it is not processed by the Region and its disposal is simply contracted out. There is a need to process this waste in a socially responsible way and thus reduce the overall consumption rate.

Many commercial operators and merchants deplore the lack of recycling capabilities. In fact, I know of a case where ICI recyclables are brought to a residence so as to be put in the “blue box”.

These observations lead to two consequences:

1. the need to address waste disposal issues would be lessened (and thus be much less critical) if we were to address, not only residential, but also ICI generated wastes. There is such a thing as the Pareto principle stating that we should first address 20% of the factors accounting for 80% of the observable. For this reason, the importance of ICI should not be overlooked.
2. the remaining life for the landfill areas would be extended if we adopted a system approach to waste, instead of simply trying to make the result of our wasteful consumption go away through landfill or incineration.

The province-wide landfill capacity available is shown to be between 126 to 141 million tonnes. Is this not true that this should remove the urgency assigned to year 2010?

Is it not true that we have some time to properly address the issue and need not join into the incineration stampede?

In other words, do you not think that there is ample room to address the issue at the source, rather than to build an INCINERATOR to get rid of this blatant display of wastage?


III – On Report 2007-J-25

This report makes a rather disturbing statement: it asserts that “York could not make a commitment at the present time sufficient to retain a 50% ownership level in the project”.

Is this is a mild way to say that Durham Region, after having looked long and hard to find a partner in this venture and thus reduce its financial exposure, is now being asked to foot most of the bill, practically as if it were alone in this venture?

Is there not a little of tokenism in the small ownership that York contemplates?

Would such a small ownership on the part of York not transfer the economic burden entirely to the Durham residents?

Is it not accurate to say that while York would limit its exposure to about $17 – 22 Millions, Durham would possibly be on the hook for $130 – 175 Millions, whereas it was previously limited to $125 Millions in the case of the 50-50 arrangement?

In addition to the capital cost, would it not be exact to say that the processing of a lower tonnage would increase the operating cost, as previous studies have demonstrated, and thus make incineration still more expensive?

Thus, is it not true to say that Durham would end up with the financial risk, the health problems and part of the York garbage and ashes?

Is it not true also to say that this is NOT a very smart move on the part of Durham Region on the basis of economics, in addition to all the other previously outlined arguments which militate against that big “landfill in the sky” resulting from incineration?

Given this financial reality, would it not seem highly improper for this Region to send a delegation to Europe to “study incinerators”?

How many taxpayers’ contributions will it take to pay for a trip of questionable value?


IV – Recommendations

Truly, the economics of the proposed incinerator do not make any more sense than the scientific ones.

For this series of reasons, I hereby request the Durham Joint Committee to put the incinerator concept to rest and start dealing with the garbage issue in a way that addresses the source of the problem, rather than its manifestations.

This is somewhat akin to drug use and misuse; one can use drugs to kill the pain, i.e. the manifestations, without really resolving the reason for such pain or one can instead address the root cause of the malaise, i.e. the source.
- - -

Executive Summary

The financial implications of the project are such that incineration should be viewed as a flawed project both from the financial point of view as from other previously discussed aspects such as Public and Environmental Health.
= = =

Health Implications of the Proposed Waste Disposal Facility

Guest Blog by Paul-André Larose, Ph.D., Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. Submission to Clarington GPA Committee on Friday 2007/06/08

Health Implications of the Proposed Waste Disposal Facility

(… or, “it is difficult to keep the Ship of State afloat if the importance of hull integrity is not being appreciated!”)

I - Introduction

Members of the Clarington GPA Committee and members of the Audience, my name is Paul-André Larose. I reside in Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. The Clerk should note that I will forward a digital version of this presentation.

I have a Ph.D. in Physics. As a scientist and resident of the Durham Region, I am extremely concerned by the proposal to build an incinerator in the area.

First however, I want to stress that I do not deny that we have to do something with our waste; like death and taxes, this is a reality that cannot be ignored. And addressing this cannot be without some consequences.

A solution must be identified on the basis of the optimization of certain variables, while not adversely impacting certain others, known as “fixed constraints”.

In particular, it is essential not to attempt to address the waste disposal issue in a way that will create new problems elsewhere, particularly in the public health area.

II – Concerns

Why am I concerned about the implications of what is currently being contemplated?

I am concerned because we appear to be “putting the cart before the horse”, namely we evaluate and debate potential locations without having prior examined the health implications of the proposed technology.

I am concerned because, with incineration, there will be unavoidable (and well-known) negative health and environmental consequences.

I am concerned because this goes against the sustainability of our agriculture, our environment and our health. Indeed, we are stewards of this world and we should always remember this Kenyan proverb:
“Take care of this Earth; your parents did not give it to you; your children lent it to you.”

I am concerned because there is now ample evidence on chemical burdening, increasing cancer rates and decreasing human fertility rates; this is not a speculative issue.

I am concerned because, as a resident of this country, I am ashamed of the inaction of our federal government in the critical matter of environmental protection; I want Durham Region to take an enlightened action, not compound the problem.

All of these are issues that should truly alarm all of us.

Moreover, I should state that, as a resident of the Region, I am concerned that I will UNWILLINGLY be contributing to the problem of what I suspect, if rationality prevails, will be an UNWILLING host.

III - Implications

“So what’s the fuss?”, one may ask. This technology will introduce two formidable enemies into the biosphere:
dioxins and furans, whose toxic concentrations are measured in pico-grammes, i.e. in billionth of a billionth of a gram (10**-12 g) or a billionth of a microgram;
nano-particulates, i.e. particles whose linear dimensions are of the order of the nanometre (10**-9 metre), that can readily migrate through membranes such as lung partitions and thus find their way into the blood stream and accumulate in organs (recall that visible light is in the 400 to 700 nm).

This is part of what we know as scientific FACTS.

For these substances, there are NO Safe Minimum Exposure levels and doses. Nano-particulates are known to migrate through partitions such as pulmonary walls and end up within the human organs. In dealing with such substances, we cannot adopt a “Solution by Dilution” approach.

It should be pointed out that incineration will not only have negative consequences on public health, but also on health care costs; this will no doubt be of interest to those interested in monetary matters.

IV – By-products

Incineration will NOT eliminate the need for landfill. In fact, it may exacerbate it, as the landfill requirements not fall into the hazardous by-products category.

Typically an incinerator leaves some 30% weight in terms of pit ashes and fly ashes; these must be disposed of in a secure landfill site. For a 250kt/year incinerator, this means 75kt/year ashes, or about 200 tons/day (calendar day).

With incineration, some 70% of the incinerated matter also go up the stack. For a 250kt/year incinerator, this corresponds to 175kt/year being sent in the atmosphere, or about 480 tons/day (calendar day).

This is also part of what we know as FACTS. Do I need to tell you where all of this is going to end up?


V – The Precautionary Principle

There are also FACTS whose long-term consequences are still speculative, i.e. we suspect them and they are yet not clear.

The literature is replete with instances of contamination on individuals who did not come in contact (or so they thought) with offending chemicals, i.e.
chemical burden on the human body (Federal Parliamentarians – Jan. 2006);
genetic damage and human fertility (W.H.O. conference speaker – Fall of 1999).

Even in the case of persons who did come in contact with a substance, compliance with the “accepted norm” is not a guarantee that the operation is safe, as such norms reflect the knowledge of the day.

For example, there is the tragic case of New Brunswick workers exposed decades ago to toxins and who are now suffering the consequences. Their exposure levels were, at the time, well within the “accepted norms”. There are numerous other instances with unexpected side effects, e.g. thalidomide, VIOX, radiation doses, lead piping, etc…

The fact that the exposure was, at one time, within legal limits now provides little solace to those whose health was irretrievably affected. In critical issues, a technology should NOT be accepted simply because it meets certain “standards” then in force.

In such instances, would it not be eminently reasonable not to jeopardize the single planet and the single life that we have by adopting a precautionary approach in the matter?


VI – Recommendations

For this and many other reasons, I hereby request the Clarington Council to clearly recognize the health aspects perils associated with the selection of any waste treatment technology.

It should adopt a position that Public Health and Environmental Concerns are primary issues that cannot, under any circumstances or any pretense, be compromised or sacrificed.

It should mandate its representatives to Regional Council to articulate this position.

It should acknowledge that good stewardship is good environmentalism which itself is good economics.
- - -

Executive Summary

Any waste disposal technology that has a negative impact on Public and Environmental Health should not be considered as suitable for waste management purposes.
= = =

The evidence is in: Halton's incinerator folly is toast

JOHN BARBER - Globe & Mail
June 6, 2007

Once again, on behalf of all Torontonians, allow me to extend sincere gratitude to the suburban municipalities now flirting seriously with incineration and similar "thermal treatments" of household wastes. Every step forward they take reconfirms the folly of their path.

But the department headed by Bob Nosal, medical officer of health for Halton Region, deserves special credit for offering the most important public service so far: a scarlet-red flag warning the easily deceived that building any such device, despite prevailing happy talk about "acceptable" levels of pollution, will hurt people - or, to use the phrase preferred by Halton bureaucrats, "be associated with some increase in adverse health impacts."

Until now, the folly of incineration has emerged in the form of inconvenient truths popping out of the environmental assessments of impending new incinerators in Durham and Niagara - hard evidence about emissions, costs and alternatives to replace the easy assurances heard earlier on the sales floor.

Dr. Nosal's intervention is the first rebellion to emerge from within the ranks of the promoters.

It takes the benign form of a peer review of "Step 4a" of the region's plan to build an incinerator, in which it purported to identify and describe the prospective facility's "potential health and environmental effects." Written by medical scientist David Pengelly, recent recipient of a City of Toronto Green award for his work on air quality, the review gently but thoroughly demolishes official assurances that modern incinerators are benign.

"I'm a scientist," Dr. Pengelly said in an interview. "I'm not convinced by assertions, I'm convinced by evidence." The Halton report, he added, offered no evidence to support the contention that modern incinerators, despite being cleaner than their predecessors, are in fact safe. They emit the same dangerous pollutants as earlier incinerators, albeit less of them. But how much is that? Step 4a doesn't say.

"I'm prepared to accept that things are better than they were," he said. "My problem was that there wasn't very specific scientific evidence brought out to show how much better they are."

Dr. Nosal, the official who commissioned the review, is already advocating strict abatement of existing pollution in Halton's already "taxed" airshed - a position unlikely to herald approval of new sources of dangerous pollution. He and his crew deserve "a great deal of credit for taking an active role in making sure that these health issues are addressed right from the very beginning," Dr. Pengelly said. "I can tell you that's not happening in other municipalities."

Leaving aside its welcome exposé of incineration's health hazards, the Halton report includes more than enough latent ammunition to destroy any hope a burner might soon be built there. The idea is absurd on its face: Halton's existing landfill is big enough to last until 2030, long before which it could easily be expanded to take garbage until the last person alive today is gone.

Mercifully, the bureaucrats have abandoned their nutty idea that Halton should "take a leadership role" by building a giant incinerator to compete with facilities throughout the province. Unlike some of their colleagues elsewhere, they acknowledge that recent developments - especially the sudden appearance of 50 million tonnes of new landfill capacity in Southern Ontario - have destroyed the viability of such schemes. Faced with the disappointing fact that Halton has no need for an incinerator, they are reduced to recommending a teeny tiny one.

This ongoing retreat is a fascinating event for which suburban taxpayers - and everybody who breathes - should be grateful.

Stripped of its rationale, its hazards exposed, the current push to incinerate is revealed as a kind of infrastructure adventurism, led by a tunnel-visioned cadre of engineers and consultants, that can be brought to a halt with no negative consequences.