Solid Waste & Recycling


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (February 01, 2000)

Scrap Tire FiascoI'm writing to thank Guy Crittenden for his editorial in the December/January edition. I don't know where or how Mr. Crittenden gathered his background information but the editorial h...

Scrap Tire Fiasco

I’m writing to thank Guy Crittenden for his editorial in the December/January edition. I don’t know where or how Mr. Crittenden gathered his background information but the editorial hits the nail squarely on the head. I only wish that Ontario Minister of Environment Tony Clement would read it; better still, it should be required reading for the half dozen bureaucrats at the environment ministry who have successfully managed to block or derail every attempt by the private sector to deal with scrap tires since 1989.

What really makes it frustrating is that the private sector (manufacturers, distributors, tire retailers, haulers, recyclers), despite wide individual differences in position and opinion, has managed to develop a consensus based approach to solving the problem along the lines already successfully in place in the three prairie provinces. But only governments have the authority to enact the fundamental backdrop legislation necessary to empower a program that would put “midnight tire disposal” out of business. Ontario’s purely voluntary approach only lets the tricksters, such as Otterwood, win and ensures that the bona fide recyclers get it in the ear.

Don Campbell


The Rubber Association of Canada

Thank you for the expos and attention-getting detail of the cases discussed in the editorial. I have a novel solution for used tires that is detailed on my web page:, called “TireTube.” In this system, tires are turned “inside out” using technology that can be utilized at any gas station (saving dumps and transportation). The resulting TireTubes have a brand new appearance and can be strung together to make highway bumbers, sound walls and composters.

Winston MacKelvie

The Winston Works

Caught NaPPing

I don’t know what’s with Solid Waste & Recycling and its fixation with belittling the achievements of the National Packaging Protocol (NaPP). (See the cover article in the October/November 1999 edition.)

Everyone on the National Task Force on Packaging recognizes that the 1988 benchmark estimates (upon which the packaging waste diversion achievements were judged) were not rock solid — they were based on surveys of manufacturers plus other industry and customs data. But they were accepted by the whole task force as the best estimates that could be assembled for that year.

No one is sitting back and resting on their laurels that the 2000 waste diversion target was achieved ahead of time. Most of the elimination, reduction, reuse and recycling efforts implemented in the 1990s have been cemented. There’s no turning back the clock.

Your magazine, however, continues to promote the unsubstantiated claim that the NaPP data shows a failure to reduce “post-consumer” packaging waste. It shows no such thing.

The task force specifically asked Statistics Canada to break out industrial packaging from consumer (or residential) packaging following the 1996 survey results. Statistics Canada could not do so with any degree of confidence, and told the task force this directly. Accordingly, the task force could not and did not report any breakout of data related to industrial and consumer packaging.

You and your commissioned writers don’t seem to want to accept this and continue to compile your own “statistical” interpretations. To what agenda I ask?

The one bright note in your latest article on this subject is the author’s recognition that when people are directly responsible for their waste management costs that “great reduction and efficiency occurs in very little time.”

I couldn’t have made the case for user fees on residential garbage better myself.

John Mullinder

Executive Director

Paper & Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC)

Hot-Wiring Strathroy

In the February/March edition cover story, Guy Crittenden referred to TCR Environmental as a past recipient of an RCO Ontario Waste Minimization Award. For the record, while TCR was considered for the 1997 Outstanding Program Operator Award because of its very high waste diversion claim, it was presented with an “Honourable Mention” only. Green Lane Environmental was in fact the Award winner in the Operators’ category in 1997.

John Hanson

Executive Director

Recycling Council of Ontario

Print this page

Related Posts

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *