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

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

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.

Greenbelt primary focus of Official Plan vote

Durham Region's first full council meeting after the summer break saw the main issue being the contentious Durham Region Official Plan the main focus of delegations and Council.

The majority of delegations spoke in support of the Provincial Greenbelt Plan as well as Provincial Places to Grow. Two candidates for Clarington Council spoke in support of the Greenbelt as it stands with the Province - Richard Ward (candidate for Mayor) and Linda Gasser (candidate for Regional Wards 3 & 4). Ms. Gasser was badgered by Oshawa Mayor John Gray but she stood her ground and gave good answers. She was also questioned by Councillors Emm and Nicholson and Chair Roger Anderson, who tried to fluster her but didn't succeed. Mayor Parish, a member of the planning committee, asked numerous questions of Ms. Gasser and supported her efforts, as well as others. A welcome change in attitude from the nastiness especially of Mayor Gray. Chair of the Planning Committee, G. O'Connor looked plenty perturbed by most of the delegations, but took out her angst on Terry Nuspl from Pickering. There were some excellent speakers in support of the Greenbelt legislation and included lands and very few against it. Not at all reflective of the majority of regional councillors.

Last May Durham Region designated 2,200 hectares of greenbelt land for future development (to satisfy developers who supply the majority of election campaign funds for Durham politicians, perhaps?). An attempt to have council rescind its May decision on Wednesday failed on a vote of 15 to 9. This in spite of the fact that Durham planners say that Durham Region already has enough land designated as "urban" for development to accomodate the next 25 years of growth. But council agreed to postpone further discussion of the details of greenbelt intrusions until January 2007 - after the election - likely because of all the opposition to it from residents who showed up at Council chambers for the meeting.

This is typical of the Regional Council. Their very capable planning staff did support the greenbelt and did not support trying to change it - the Greenbelt legislation is LAW and the Province has made their intentions clear - they will NOT change it for the next 10 years But Regional Planning Committee (made up of some of the mayors/regional councillors) directed planning staff to do a report that would include removal of the subject lands from the greenbelt, or find a way to signal that if that was not possible, these lands were preferred for future development (pending studies, of course). Typical back-door approach that happens when they can't get what they want directly.

Good news though for Clarington. The west Courtice areas that the Region wanted removed from the Greenbelt so they could be slated for future development - were removed from the "Future Growth Areas" as per Clarington's wishes. But their inclusion in the Provincial Greenbelt will still be under assault by Durham Region in January when it comes before them again (after the election).

This is an important issue and should be an "election issue" for voters of Clarington. When your candidate comes around to your door or phones you or you have any opportunity to meet any of them, ask them their position on the Greenbelt. Don't be fooled if they say "they support it" - ask whether they will keep the Greenbelt boundaries intact until it is reviewed by the Province in 2015, or whether they agree with the attempt by Durham Region to remove some of the lands from the greenbelt designation. You may also want to ask them if they are accepting campaign contributions from developers. Don't let them double-talk you - get solid answers to your questions. Don't be afraid to ask.

So, bottom line is that Regional Council is still "developer friendly" and doesn't even try to hide it anymore (at least most of them). And here is one more good reason why the Regional Chair should be ELECTED by the voters, not appointed by a vote of Council.

It is also true that every single one of our present council and mayor had developers as donors to their last campaign. For example, in the last election, Mayor Mutton raised over $40,000 in campaign contributions. Approx. $1600 of it was from private individuals, and the rest was from corporations - mostly developers and contractors! No wonder our council and Durham Region is perceived as being "developer friendly".

And after the shouting down and nasty reception of several resident speakers at Regional Council on Wednesday (along with similar actions in Clarington Council chambers over the last while) - it's no wonder that these Councils are NOT seen as being "resident friendly".

For more, see "Bastard Child of the 905" in the Oshawa Metroland blog, along with the Globe and Mail's John Barber's Column in that same blog entry. See text below. Emphasis/bold is mine.


Don't mess with Durham

JOHN BARBER

Linda Gasser, an organic beef farmer aspiring to municipal office in Clarington -- an urban-frontier amalgamation of what used to be the few small towns and many farms and forests of Clarke and Darlington townships -- prepared meticulously for the presentation she made this week to Durham Region council, the body she hopes to join Nov. 13.

Standing at a lectern facing an oval-shaped parliament of stiff and comically sober incumbents, she offered a detailed, thoughtful critique of the region's latest retrograde attempt to prepare supposedly protected land for more of the same sprawl that is threatening to ruin the last of its old towns, farms and forests.

Despite six years of review, she said, the new official plan currently before council is a mess. "I lay responsibility for this official plan mess at the feet of the chair of planning committee, and [Durham Region] Chairman [Roger] Anderson."

At that, the oval went electric. Oshawa Mayor John Gray, chairing the meeting at the time, began shouting at Ms. Gasser. "You can't lay allegations here!" he bellowed, while fellow councillors rose to decry the monstrous offence in tones equally aggrieved and indignant. "Don't lay allegations!" he bellowed again and again.

"It's not an allegation," Ms. Gasser, shaken by the sudden uproar, replied quietly. "It's an opinion."

Mr. Anderson, the usual chairman of such gatherings, is more sophisticated than ludicrous Mayor Gray is in his mistreatment of constituents, preferring facetious mockery to clumsy intimidation. Thus, he contrived to mispronounce the perfectly phonetic name of one meek citizen he faced down, Terry Nuspl of Pickering, half a dozen times before she was able to begin her plea to preserve the farms and forests.

Chairman Anderson was all charm and jocularity as he insulted his constituent by mangling her name every way he could think of. Then he turned the proceedings over to attack-dog Gerri Lynn O'Connor, mayor of Uxbridge.

Mayor O'Connor mercilessly berated Ms. Nuspl for not knowing the precise name of the particular instrument that Durham had invented to punch holes in the Greater Toronto greenbelt -- and whether it is an attachment, schedule or appendix to the official plan.

The rules of procedure allow councillors to question citizens who come to speak in the chamber. But Mayor O'Connor made no pretense of asking questions as she viciously laid into the quaking citizen for not knowing the difference between an attachment and an appendix. After uttering one insincere, ineffective protest on behalf of the rules, Chairman Anderson just let her rip.

"It's a tried-and-true tactic in Durham," candidate Gasser reflected after the ugly meeting ended. "I try to be prepared for it but it still takes me aback."

Two themes dominate her doorstep discussions with voters during the current campaign, according to Ms. Gasser. One is strong support for the provincial greenbelt and new provincial policies restricting the sprawl so beloved of Durham council. "They see that it is really important to maintain the rural character of this region, this municipality in particular," Ms. Gasser said. "I hear a lot about that."

The other theme is disgust at self-serving politicians who abuse their constituents. "People don't really want to be shouted down at town hall," she said. "They are looking for politicians who treat them fairly."

In truth the two issues -- the greenbelt and political thuggery -- are perfect reflections of one another, both potent proofs of how isolated and unaccountable local politics has become in Durham, bastard child of the 905. Still scandalously dependent on the development industry to finance their campaigns, incumbents can afford to ignore public opinion while they serve vested interests. The reason? Hardly anybody bothers to vote.

The few citizens who do step up dare not mention in council what they all know to be obvious. Oh, how the politicians howl, how prickly and pompous they become when some meek voter dares to notice their slavish dependence on developer dollars. Like contrary opinions, the plain truth about local politics has no place in the perfect echo chamber of Durham council.

Consider the case of Clarington Mayor John Mutton, a notorious shouter who is campaigning for re-election while facing criminal assault charges. Mayor Mutton raised more than $40,000 to contest the 2003 election, of which individual constituents -- four in total -- contributed $1,600. The rest came from corporations, the vast majority of whom were developers and contractors from everywhere except Clarington.

Are the results of the official-plan debate any surprise in such circumstances? Of course not. Even though Durham planners say that the region already has enough designated urban land to accommodate another 25 years of sprawl, council voted to prepare another 15,000 acres for development -- lands specifically protected by provincial law as agricultural forever. Cowed slightly by mounting opposition that even they can't fail to notice, the Durhams courageously delayed their attempt to punch holes in the actual greenbelt until after the election.

Despite some "dumb political acrobatics," the result is clear, according to Ajax Mayor Steve Parish, the only council member who refuses corporate contributions. "They basically are still committed to the private interests that support them," he said. "This was really the triumph of private interests over the public interest."

Chairman Anderson blames his council's increasing notoriety on meddlesome Toronto newspapers. I hope he's right about the effect of the novel scrutiny, but nothing will change unless Durham voters start to meddle themselves.