Litter Prevention Program
Phone: (416) 321-0633
  • Home
    • 2014 Annual Report
    • This Week in 'Litterland' >
      • Current Edition
      • Past Issues by Date
    • Guide
  • Media
    • Sheila's Shlog >
      • Dear Diary
    • About >
      • Press Release
      • Program Brochure >
        • Program Details
      • What People Say >
        • Visitor Feedback
  • Get Involved
    • Partnerships
    • Help Us >
      • Our Friends
    • Heroes
  • News Reel
    • Feb 2023
    • Jan 2023 >
      • Dec 2022
      • Nov 2022 >
        • Oct 2022
        • Sep 2022 >
          • Aug 2022
          • Jul 2022
          • Jun 2022
          • May 2022
          • Apr 2022 >
            • Mar 2022
            • Feb 2022
            • Jan 2022
            • Dec. 2021
            • Nov. 2021 >
              • Oct. 2021
              • Sep. 2021
              • Aug. 2021
              • Jul. 2021
              • Jun. 2021
              • May 2021
              • Apr. 2021 >
                • Mar. 2021
                • Feb. 2021
                • Jan. 2021
                • Dec. 2020 >
                  • Nov. 2020
                  • Oct. 2020
                  • Sep. 2020
                  • Aug. 2020
                  • Jul. 2020
                  • Jun. 2020 >
                    • May 2020
                    • Apr. 2020
                    • Mar. 2020
                    • Feb. 2020
                    • Jan. 2020 >
                      • Dec. 2019
                      • Nov. 2019
                      • Oct. 2019
                      • Sep. 2019
                      • Aug. 2019
                      • Jul. 2019
                      • Jun. 2019
                      • May 2019
                      • Apr. 2019
                      • Mar. 2019 >
                        • Feb. 2019
                        • Jan. 2019
                        • Dec. 2018
                        • Nov. 2018
                        • Oct. 2018
                        • Sep. 2018 >
                          • Aug. 2018
                          • Jul. 2018
                          • Jun. 2018
                          • May 2018
                          • Apr. 2018
                          • Mar. 2018
                          • Feb. 2018
                          • Jan. 2018
  • Photo Gallery
    • Video
    • Library
    • Butts and More Butts
    • Clean Up Days
    • Coffee Cups
    • Litter Photos
    • Poster
  • Prevent Litter
    • You Vote
    • Opinion Poll
    • Causes
    • Solutions
    • Benefits
    • Tips >
      • For Business
    • Tobacco litter >
      • Fact Sheet
      • Letter to Imperial Tobacco
    • Resources >
      • Marine Litter
      • Plastics
    • Why Prevent Litter?
    • Toronto
  • Contact
    • Corporate Brochures
    • WORDS Media & Communications Inc.

What to say to a smoker who litters the street with butts

3/11/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
After collecting 50 butts from the street in front of a home obviously occupied by a smoker, I decided to put the following letter in the mailbox of the offending household. I enclosed the bag of butts with a note on it saying, 'Please put in your garbage'.

Dear Neighbours,

If you’re old enough to smoke, you’re old enough to clean up after yourself.  It shouldn’t be up to your neighbour to do it for you.  Yesterday I picked all these butts up off the ground in front of your home.  I found more this morning.

I’m trying to keep our street and community clean and free of litter.  Why am I picking up after you?  You are not a child.

These are ashtrays.  Please use them or one of your own, an empty jar, tin or can will do.  Stop littering your dirty, toxic butts on the street, please. I’m giving you these portable, reusable, extinguishing ashtrays free so that you can correct your behavior.  If you want more, call me if you can’t find your own ashtray.

I’m tired of picking up after the smoker(s) who live here.  By throwing your toxic cigarette filters on the ground you show disrespect and inconsideration and lack of pride for our beautiful neighbourhood.

Please be aware that the cigarette butt problem in front of your home is upsetting, polluting and has to stop.

Littering cigarette butts is against the law.  If you continue to dirty the street someone will be gathering evidence and reporting this problem to the city’s by-law enforcement division. 

​The fine for littering in Toronto is $325 per occurrence.
Picture
0 Comments

Are Ontario's blue box committee hearing members really hearing?

12/2/2020

0 Comments

 

Whew! I made the December 3rd deadline, just under the wire. I put the final touches on my comments about changes to Ontario's cherished and much-emulated Blue Box recycling program. The proposed changes take recycling away from municipalities and puts it in the hands of "producers".  These are the corporate giants and their brands that create the waste materials in the first place. I put responding to the government committee whose members will be voting on this on my 'must do' list.  Proud to say must 'do' is now 'done'. A four-page, typewritten brief.

​The only tools I have are words.  Even then, I can't force politicians and policymakers to read or do what I say but at least I can say, "I told you so"  and "I tried."  Keep in mind that comments  won't be circulated if they mention names and phone numbers. I had to edit my submission to remove Loblaw, Shoppers Drug Mart, Life Brand and CEO Galen Weston from my comments about wet wipes. Yes, a big waste bin of topics are covered here. When you have the government's ear, bend it.


Ontarians have one of two choices about waste disposal, 1) be responsible and use the appropriate bin or 2) be irresponsible and litter or dump, and/or contaminate loads by recycling incorrectly and not packing their bins correctly.

This regulation covers 1) the responsible consumer who will put the waste in the appropriate bin.  It obligates producers to deal with the waste in the bin, by definition “end of life” waste.  However, the legislation has a gaping hole: it does not deal with point 2) above, the Ontarians who are careless with their waste.

I suggest that the term “end of life” be removed from the text of legislation wherever it appears.
Section 70 of this regulation says that it “may provide that a person mentioned in section 61 or 62 is responsible for implementing a promotion and education program in respect of the collection system or management system for that class in accordance with the prescribed requirements.”         (italics mine)
It mentions educating consumers. I completely agree – communication is a key. Let the public see how well or poorly corporations are doing at managing waste generated by both the responsible and irresponsible consumers.
This regulation speaks of:
  • Reporting on the amounts of Blue Box materials supplied and diverted each year
  • Establishing collection systems
  • Achieving management requirements for Blue Box materials, including meeting diversion targets
  • Educating consumers
  • Registering with and reporting to the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority
  • Other requirements, including record keeping and third-party audits
 
Regarding, ‘Educating consumers’ I recommend a return to Ontario Regulation 103/94 2.1.3 and that this be an obligation placed on all sectors – Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, Multi-Residential – a holistic approach that takes recycling targets seriously across the board and communicates this message to the public.  Quoting here directly from the former regulation:

A Guide to Source Separation of Recyclable Materials for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sectors and Multi-Unit Residential Buildings

Information to Users
  • To promote awareness of the source separation program and ensure its continuing success, information must be provided to those who will use the program (e.g. employees, patrons, students and tenants).
  • This information can be in the form of yearly or more frequent progress reports that show the amount of materials collected, cost savings or other waste reduction achievements.
  • These reports serve as reminders and motivational tools to encourage participation by providing feedback to users.
  • The program should be communicated to employees, tenants, students and patrons to ensure that source separation procedures, responsibilities and equipment use are properly understood.
  • New employees should also be informed of the program and trained in its operation as soon as is practical after being hired. Also, information about modifications to the program, such as the addition of new materials to be separated, must be conveyed.
  • Communication can be through newsletters, signs, group meetings or other methods available to the owner or operator.
  • Employees should be trained in the proper use of source separation equipment and program procedures. Training should enable employees to recognize what materials must be source separated, the desired quality, locations of collection containers, and how to contact program coordinators.
  • Training can take place through meetings, information sessions, newsletters or pamphlets.

I refer now to excerpted recommendations from my 2013 report LITTER CONTROL IN ONTARIO: NO TIME TO WASTE.
  • Include anti-littering message on Ministry of Transportation (MTO) vehicle licence renewal information inserts.
  • Institute an organized system of data collection. 
  • Ministry of Government Services work with Ontario Public Service regarding cigarette butt and other litter to ensure responsible waste management practices among employees at all levels of the public service. 
  • Implement uniform recycling and litter prevention measures across all ministries. 
  • Establish a panel to look at updating Ontario’s approach to littering to achieve better results. 
  • Signal through Ministry of the Attorney General that littering charges are to be taken seriously. 
  • Support those municipalities’ efforts that reinforce non-littering behaviours.
  • Remove “end of life” as a term describing waste in legislation and in stewardship organization mandates so that they must take some ownership and responsibility for product litter problems.
  • Include clear information about waste management and litter prohibitions in citizenship courses and pledges.
  • Spearhead an assessment of Ontario’s enforcement levels and practices and begin routine enforcement of EPA Reg. 103/94 (2.1.3) on ICI sector.

A second progress report on litter was published back in 2014.

Through regulation there needs to be a higher built-in standard of action on the government agency’s part and better, enforceable accountability measures for the producers and their organizations. 
As well, the public should be told of the cost implications as industry groups pass on their costs to consumers through product price increases.

​Communication must be clear.  Targets must be set and honoured. 

Producers have largely sidestepped their obligation to educate consumers about the proper disposal of their products - tobacco, plastics, confectionery, PPE, for example.

So how well will the ministry, its agency and corporate partners communicate the facts about the Blue Box changeover, the ongoing results and who to hold accountable for fixing problems or failures and addressing complaints?

I think now specifically of wipes. These products are branded with names such as “Flushables”.  Non-recyclable, frequently littered, plastic wipes that people are wrongly flushing and creating serious maintenance issues for municipal sewer systems around the world.  They are anything but flushable. Three major Canadian companies here in Ontario have been deaf to my written and phone complaints to the CEO on down.  They peddle a generic brand of wet wipes which they label “flushable”, misleading consumers into believing that plastic wipes are safe to flush down toilets when in fact such disposal is an environmentally degrading act that is damaging to vital water and sewage treatment machinery.

​Please consult the excellent work of the MESUG (Municipal Enforcement Sewer Use Group), and build in measures in law that enable the ministry and the public to fix problems like this.
The same goes for the corporate definition of “biodegradable”. We can’t have corporations implying that if their product is strewn, it’s going to disappear on its own any time soon.  Municipal recycling systems aren’t set up to process most of these new, so-called biodegradable products like snack bag wrappers and coffee pods.

Something as simple as putting the word “litter” as a topic heading on the Ontario environment ministry’s website homepage seems impossible to achieve. I’ve tried. Such a simple request, why is it so difficult to do this one small thing? 

Given the frustration of trying to move the needle even slightly, is there even a point in my requesting standards and protocols that deal with “non-end of life” waste and hold producers accountable for getting litter prevention, recycling, education and proper disposal information to their customers? 
If not this remedy, then the government must develop an aggressive and robust alternative plan for coming to grips with Ontario’s litter problem.  With all due respect to the MECP staff behind the government’s year-one Act on Litter campaign, the need for a better program online and on the ground is clearly evident, especially when measured against global examples of concerted litter prevention programs.

I’d also like to see something built in to the legislation for controlling any mark-ups and consumer price hikes, particularly but not only in the food and grocery sectors, that come as a result of companies passing on additional costs related to meeting their corporate sustainability obligations under this legislation.
And lastly, I use this opportunity to point out that Ontario does have a PPE littering epidemic.  Increased littering overall is another unfortunate effect of COVID-19 with PPE registering as a new and prolific litter type on land and in water. Manufacturers of plastic gloves and face masks should be expected in law to have a recycling and collection program relating to these products specifically just as the wipes producers should be challenged over the “flushable” labeling.

These are my comments. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider them.  While I realize some of them may not apply to this regulation per se, I do see them as relevant to the broader discussion of waste in Ontario and what actions the province can take to improve the situation.
 
Sheila White
Litter Prevention Program
0 Comments

Dear Minister:

5/26/2020

1 Comment

 
BACKGROUND: I wonder if I will receive an answer to this letter I emailed to Ontario's Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks? I'm a big fan of writing letters to try to get action. That way I can make my frustration someone else's problem. Complaining in writing makes me feel better right away. I find relief and satisfaction knowing I've done all I can. And then I wait.  It's pretty shameful how long one can wait for a reply of any kind from government, and I have often thought it would be great if I could get paid to complain on other people's behalf.

More than a year ago I was excited to tell my readers that Ontario had finally taken a step toward addressing a long-ignored, province-wide litter problem. You'll see what I said then at the end of this post.

When I pushed the previous Liberal government to consider a review of it's approach to littering in 2012 I was mocked in some circles.  So when it looked as though Ontario under the Conservatives was about to get serious, I was jubilant.  The joy didn't last.  As I started digging, I found there was no real plan for litter action and to my mind, this is still the case. 

An #ActONlitter social media campaign was unveiled on May 12, an inaugural Day of Action on Litter, hobbled by group cleanups knocked out by COVID-19.  My former high hopes were now down the well.  I had to write the Minister responsible, MPP Jeff Yurek. (He was not the environment minister who announced Ontario's litter intentions back in March 2019.  That guy, Rod Phillips, is now the finance minister of downward spiraling deficits. You think he maybe wishes he was still minister of golf courses and campsites?)  My email Inbox surprised me just yesterday with a thank-you from Minister Yurek and his Parliamentary Assistant, a result of my pestering staff to put me on the MECP media list.  So first here's the Minister's lovely form letter, followed by my comeback.

Good morning,  

On May 12, 2020, we celebrated Ontario’s first Provincial Day of Action on Litter and I want to thank you for your participation and support that helped make it such a great success.

We saw an overwhelming amount of participation through Twitter, Instagram and other social media platforms. It was an incredible demonstration of how people across the province can come together in support of creating a cleaner Ontario for today and for future generations. 

Thank you for taking the time to recognize the Day of Action on Litter and help spread the word through your channels. On the first day alone, there were over 500 downloads of the participation guide and social assets, with a digital audience reach of nearly 2 million people. Our hashtag #actONlitter was also a top-10 trending topic on Twitter in Ontario, and #13 in Canada.

While we have postponed public and corporate cleanups until later this year to support physical distancing efforts, our hope is that these events can take place during Waste Reduction Week, from October 19 to 25, 2020. We look forward to working with you again closer to the fall in preparation for these cleanups. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please email ActONLitter@ontario.ca.

Thank you again for your support.

Jeff Yurek 
Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks 
Andrea Khanjin
Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks 
_________________


May 26, 2020

Dear Minister Yurek,

While I do sincerely appreciate your thank-you note regarding the Day of Action on Litter, I am writing to express my overall disappointment in MECP’s #ActONlitter campaign and corresponding website.

On March 10, 2019 my publication, “Litterland”, hailed your government’s decision to place a focus on litter and develop a strategy. (Please see attachment.)  I participated in your consultation process, also wrote to you directly and, subsequently, have exchanged several emails with your staff.

My goal is to see that MECP uses the opportunity it has created to put forward the best possible litter awareness program. I still have many unanswered questions about your Ministry’s approach to litter prevention.  As someone very familiar with model programs from around the world, I regret that Ontario’s falls well short of what is desirable for litter prevention education.

I am providing a critique of #ActONlitter on the assumption that you would want feedback as Ontario’s environment minister and would want your staff or the ad agency to make changes to the web page and participation guide to better reflect a focus on litter prevention.

Litter, which is ‘non-“end of life”’ waste, is not covered within your legal framework for Extended Producer Responsibility.   Along with an offering of expertise in this brief critique, based on the idea of creating a relevant and effective presence, I continue to ask that ‘LITTER’ appear as a word on the MECP home page and that it links to an upgraded litter content-rich site.  It just seems like such an obvious and easy thing to do.  May I please know if it cannot be done, why that is so?

In formulating a critique of the newly launched ontario.ca/actonlitter, I sought added input from a veteran creator of award-winning solid waste campaigns.

Critique of #ActONlitter page
- dull, fails to live up to its title “Day of Action on Litter”
- web page lacks litter facts, stats, images
 - Easy to find, why not include? 
- lacks cultural diversity and multilingualism
- lacks specific references to litter types: cigarettes, chewing gum, beverage containers, polystyrene, food wrappers, coffee cups, plastics, packaging, balloons, fireworks
- nor does the site speak to those who use such products directly with facts about proper disposal, hazards related to each litter type and warnings about consequences for littering.
- dog waste and spitting warrant same attention as PPE.
- good tips on reduce, reuse and correct waste sorting, but these monopolize the page. They should be a sidebar.
- images/info relating to littering should be the main event.   Provide links to other external sites too. 
- “To be launching a May 12 action day without promotion and time to organize litter pickup activities tells me this province is not serious about eliminating litter.”  This was my colleague’s comment, and I couldn’t agree more.

I would like to liaise with the staff lead responsible for organizing activities associated with future Days of Action on Litter. And may I please know what your comprehensive plan actually is for dealing with litter 365 days a year?

In closing, Minister, all I hope to gain here is your assurance that MECP will re-tool its thinking about the #ActONlitter web page and will work to make the entire program more helpful and meaningful to the cause, starting with your acknowledgment that Ontario’s environment ministry should have the word “litter” on its home page and content that matches the importance of the subject.  I’d like to use your answers in a future article and blog post.

Again, thank you for your note of appreciation.  I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Sheila White
Founder, Litter Prevention Program


WITH COVID-19 ON EVERYONE'S MIND, NOW MORE THAN EVER, CLEAN IS COOL!

My words in 2019:

1 Comment

Writing a letter about litter counts for something

6/23/2019

2 Comments

 
The Toronto Star published my letter about the NBA Champions' Victory Parade aftermath, but only the first two paragraphs, not all four. It really helps to write a letter when you have a strong opinion to express. Whether it appears in print or not, there is a certain satisfaction to be found in the mere act of sending an email when you believe something needs to change. Never feel that writing letters to the media is a waste of time.  For me, it's the staying silent that's useless.

To The Editor:

When I saw all the litter and garbage that people left behind at the Toronto Raptors parade and rally, I did not feel that Torontonians behaved like ‘champions’.
At the very least there could have been reminders from the stage and along the route telling fans to take their waste home if they were unable to find a proper bin for disposal. Especially now, with attention being paid to the cost and environmental harm incurred from the careless disposal of single-use plastics, that's an important message to repeat.
On Rally Day lax attitudes toward the crime of littering could not have been more evident. You had the police everywhere and all the top-level public officials there, yet no one said a word about waste.  Think of the example all that littering sets for kids.
So many things could be done to dissuade this collective bad habit.  I fail to understand the vacuum of silence from leadership whether in politics, policing, sports or media on the anti-social behaviour of littering. Can we not see more thoughtful actions and conversations on littering generally? That would be truly ‘Raptorious’!
2 Comments

How Toronto's mayor responded to my littering complaint

6/19/2019

0 Comments

 
Back in December 2018 I spied a Toronto firefighter on my street littering a cigarette he had finished smoking at the side of his fire truck. It was a frigid early morning, but I hauled myself outside to demonstrate my displeasure over what I had seen. I stooped down and picked up the butt. I gave him a pocket ashtray that he could use the next time. "No littering," I told him, and he agreed. It was a one-minute exchange, one of those teaching moments that I'm fairly sure he will never forget.

Then I wrote to the Mayor of Toronto. I advocated for a policy that reminds smokers who work for the City of Toronto not to litter their tobacco product castoffs.

"I would like to be referred to the appropriate individual in your office, the city manager’s office or the office of Toronto Fire Services to discuss what can be done to remind City of Toronto employees who smoke that the bylaw requires proper disposal and no littering of cigarette butts, particularly not on public property or in or near city vehicles and equipment, but preferably never," said my letter to Mayor John Tory dated December 4.

"I clean my street daily in an ongoing experiment to see if I can make it and keep it litter-free.  While it is the cleanest street in Toronto, litter continues to find its way onto the street day in, day out. That speaks of broader problems of lack of education, awareness, effort and enforcement.  Could someone speak to me about this, please?"

A pretty straightforward request, I thought, as I mailed the letter and put it out of my mind.  Having run a mayor's office before I admit I have an exacting standard when it comes to communications. So I was less than impressed to receive a response four months later, an unsigned letter from Sincerely, Mayor's Administration dated April 1, 2019. Was this some kind of April Fool's joke? Did the Mayor of Toronto even see my letter? 

After thanking me for taking the time to write to the Office of the Mayor (well, actually, I wrote to John Tory), the Administration goes on to apologize for the delay in responding. "We received a high volume of correspondence from residents in recent months."

"We have forwarded your concerns to the Deputy City Manager, Chief of Fire Services and the General Manager of Solid Waste Management for their review and action. They have informed our office that they would follow up with their staff members in regards to littering, especially after you brought this incident to our attention."  (Hey, looks good on paper, nice-sounding words, but how do I know this was ever done?  Any Toronto employee who was told by city management not to litter, please contact me.)

"We have also forwarded your suggestion of having a city-wide campaign or policy to ensure city staff do not litter, to senior staff in our office for their consideration."  (That's code for saying, 'your idea is being shoved to the furthest corner of someone's messy desk and will never again see the light of day.')

There was no further follow up from the mayor's office. If they had looked out their city hall windows at the mess visitors left behind after the Toronto Raptors NBA Championship rally, maybe in hindsight they're understanding that an ongoing litter prevention campaign is a winning strategy, not a ball to dodge.
0 Comments

How I busted a Toronto firefighter for littering his cigarette butt

12/1/2018

2 Comments

 
This morning in my pajamas I caught a Toronto firefighter red-handed littering a cigarette butt on my street. I saw him smoking behind the truck -- evidently a non-emergency call across the street, thank goodness.

Watching him through my front window, I couldn't get to him quickly enough to give him a portable ashtray. He dropped the butt on the ground and flattened it with his boot.  ​

​I grab my coat and boots and thirty seconds later I'm out the door. His back is to me as he examines some equipment so I call out 'hey' to get his attention. He watches as I stooped down, picked up his butt next to where he's standing and put it in the little extinguishing pouch I give away for butt disposal. It looks like a business card until you open it up and it becomes a butt receptacle.

I said eight words in the exchange. "Here," I said, handing him the pouch containing the evidence. "Use this. It's an ashtray. (pause) No littering."

He looked at me and said "Yes."

So now I'm going to suggest to Toronto Fire Services that firefighters should be reminded not to litter, especially not cigarette butts.
Picture
2 Comments

A tree lover's fight in Toronto

1/26/2016

0 Comments

 
To its credit the City of Toronto has a tree protection by-law. There was a time when no tree in this city was safe. Now people wanting to remove healthy, mature trees are required to plunk down some money for a permit to have their request considered.  At that point the big white sign goes up on the front lawn where everyone can see it for a few weeks giving notification of what is being proposed. It is within that window that one can object to a tree coming down, which I did today.

A tree-loving sentimentalist to the core I felt that the towering silver maple measuring 109 cm in diameter wanted me to speak for it.  I am quite sure my neighbour will not be happy with me.
 
* * *

Too many trees have been lost in my neighbourhood.  Prior to a tree protection bylaw being in place, the property that abuts my backyard was clear-cut entirely of all mature trees to make way for a new home.  At the end of this blog you can read a description of what was lost at that time, October 1994.

An established area where builders are eager to replace older homes with new mansions, tree removal has occurred like never before in our area, an historic portion of C. D. Farquharson Community, west of Brimley between Sheppard Avenue and Hwy 401.  A heritage farmhouse with a significant stand of trees is located here. The farm was subdivided to create our community.  All the original homes were part of Toronto’s early suburbs of the early 1950s. But the trees in many cases existed long before that as part of the then-rural setting.

As well as the highway, our neighbourhood abuts a long-time industry, the largest wax refinery in the world.  Toronto Environmental Alliance has in the past flagged air quality concerns here and our ward (41) was picked for a city air quality study in 2015.  We need our mature trees to help clean the air, especially with the loss of 20 per cent of the city’s tree canopy during the ice storm of 2013.

A remnant woodlot in a city park, itself greatly reduced over the years to provide for a soccer field, offers a glimpse of a trace of what used to be in days gone by: several majestic oaks among the most prized sightings.  A favoured option in a provincial government  proposal to widen Highway 401 calls for expropriating a strip of that forest and parts of seven residential back yards, equalling the loss of more trees and green space while putting our community even closer to the highway, its noise and fumes.

To the west of us at Kennedy and Highway 401 a very dense, new wall of five, eventually six, condominium towers and a drastically altered view has made me value the existence of our trees even more. They provide a visual screen and purify the air as high rise developments are identified as the second largest contributor to CO2 emissions next to motor vehicles. *

Every tree counts for something in this environment.  The replacement cedars one sees in modern landscaping will never replace the beauty, form or function of a mature, healthy tree. 
           

I have concerns about the destruction of bird habitats as well.

* Source:  GLOBE-Net,  July 7, 2015, “Ontario feels the heat – Gap looms in climate change fight”
Comments from acting Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Ellen Schwartzel:

“... We need a more ambitious suite of actions to get us to our 2020 target, focused especially on reducing emissions from cars and trucks. And each time a new high-rise tower goes up, we should be reminded that buildings account for the next biggest increase in megatonnes of CO2
.”   Article

Trees that are lost can never be reclaimed

The Herzbergers of appropriately named Garden Avenue have a deep front and back yard stocked with a variety of growing and mature trees and shrubs.  Eva and Karl have lived there since New Year’s Day 1970 and their yard has provided much pleasure to them and their now-grown daughters, Susan and Karin.  The trees have provided a haven and food for birds and other local fauna, making the home a great place for viewing nature.
 
Roof-high cedars hug the house on one side in the front yard, and a Kentucky blue spruce, planted as a two-footer and just eight years ago, now stands at least fifteen feet high between street and house.  Its leader was broken early on by a neighbour child who loved to climb the tree.  With great care Karl grafted a side branch on to the damaged tip and the tree has grown strong and straight ever since.  Also in the front is a sturdy Crimson King maple with the last vestiges of yellow-brown leaves dotting the ground around and clinging to a few bare branches.  The 20-foot mountain ash rounds out the trees found in the front.  Its skyward-reaching branches form a kind of oval skeleton now that its leaves are gone.  The crop of colourful, red berries, though bitter, are welcomed by birds when all other food sources have been exhausted.
 
On the south side of the house is a “weeping” or trailing willow of shrub size.  It was carefully planted by their daughter as a Mother’s Day gift several years ago.
 
As mentioned, the backyard offers excellent bird-watching opportunities.  There are six giant black pines on the property with the familiar long-needled branches of dark green – light green in spring when new growth appears.  They provide protected branches on which the birds land.  Many, such as blue jays and cardinals, visit throughout the year, and as we looked out, “Felix” the friendly pileated woodpecker flew into one of the pines.  One winter day several years ago Eva was amazed to see what she believes was a peregrine falcon devouring the last of a small animal on the property.  Its talons were the size of the fingers of a human hand.  It shortly flew off, carrying with it a large ball of suet Eva had set out for the small birds.  Two gray squirrels live in the yard and several black squirrels are frequent visitors.  Eva has seen ring-necked pheasant often, and raccoons. A lizard and a skunk consider the yard their own.
 
Other trees found in the back yard are a sugar maple with bright red fall leaves, a large Manitoba maple whose branches have been broken many times in windstorms but still sturdily standing, 10-foot high French lilacs which give off their perfume every spring, and a European linden whose blossoms provide a pleasant woodsy fragrance when used as sachets and room fresheners.  A weathered, well-used wooden bird feeder leans at an angle near the window.  It has fed hundreds of wild birds over the years and is the source of much viewing pleasure at the Herzberger home.
 
One of the nice things about living in an area such as ours is to experience the sense of serenity a setting such as the Herzbergers’ home provides.  Year-round natural beauty and a constantly changing panorama of birds and other small creatures make it a joy to return to and visit.
 
--Mary Jo Turner, “Treading the Farquharson Forest IX”
C. D. Farquharson Community Newsletter,         November 1988
 
(Describes the Scarborough property directly behind mine - before it was destroyed one Sunday in 1994 in the absence of tree protection legislation.  It was a hugely heartbreaking event in my life.)

Trees attract birds like this to the back yard

Even trees that are dying have a certain beauty to them . . .
                                     . . . and they continue to support life

0 Comments

War on wet wipes scores a victory

11/24/2015

4 Comments

 
I finally learned what happened to the letter I sent to Galen Weston six months ago.  He’s the new head of Shoppers Drug Mart.  I was questioning the sale of the company's generic Life Brand product called Flushable Wipes.
 
Wet wipes are never flushable and should not be advertised as such, I argued in a letter mailed to corporate HQ on April 27.  As the months tore by, I came to believe that my letter had been ignored. 
 
Lo and behold, a response from Shoppers Drug Mart arrived in my mailbox this very day.  It was from “Suzanne” of  Shoppers Drug Mart Customer Service.  It was hand-signed.  That’s always impressive.  The company cared enough not to hit me with a laser signature.
 
After wading through a few paragraphs of preamble, I turned my attention to Page 2. I find corporate letters often put the most salient bits near the end.  And such was the case with Suzanne’s letter, dated November 20.  First she wanted me to know about Shoppers’ initiatives on waste reduction and diversion.  Safe disposal of medications and sharps, the plastic bag fee donated to good causes, energy efficiency measures.
 
Getting to the core of my concern without expressly stating it, Suzanne’s second last sentence contained big news.  Significant at least to the sewer and waste enforcement people who organized Canada’s first ever Flushables Conference, held in Kitchener-Waterloo in May 2015.  Slogan: "A toilet is not a garbage can.”
 
You see, toilets should only receive a 3P deposit – pee, pooh or paper tissue.  Many of us may be unaware of the folly of flushing wipes and other non-3Ps.  But sewer and water experts know that wipes are non-organic compounds that don’t break down easily.  They clog the arteries of sewer systems, causing breakdowns, spillage and pollution.  They washed up onto UK beaches in staggering numbers earlier this year.  (See this backgrounder.)
Picture
Picture
But back to the big news in the letter from Shoppers Drug Mart – here’s the quote that made me smile and say, “Chalk this one in my year’s accomplishments.”
 
“We appreciate your passion and concern for the environment and recycling terminology and it’s (sic) usage in society, and appreciate you taking the time to pass on your concerns and your provided documentation.  We have since forwarded your concerns onto the appropriate division for further review concerning our products,” says the letter signed with a typewritten Suzanne, an illegible signature above it.
 
I’m thinking to myself, ‘I know there’s a point in here somewhere ...’
 
“We can confirm since the draft of your letter the Life Brand Flushable wipes have since been a product we have been active in discontinuing.”
 
It doesn’t mean this major drug chain is stopping the sale of wet wipes altogether. Still, disassociating its brand name from this environmentally problematic product is a smart move that hints of sustainability savvy.

The letter from Shoppers gives me occasion to remind people to handle wipes with care by placing them in a bin or bag and never flushing them down the toilet or dropping them on the ground.
 

4 Comments

Saving a Tree from Plastic Bondage

4/16/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
Complaining to have the plastic removed from this tree was like a gift to the tree in advance of Earth Day 2015.
In my neighbourhood there is an “unassumed road” that cuts through a big box commercial complex and leads to a major highway interchange.

It begins on a corner shared by Tim Hortons and Toronto Bread, an industrial bakery, passes a vacant Rona warehouse location and wends its way past concrete hives of brand name store fronts: The Brick, LCBO, Metro, Chapters are anchors for the complex. 


William Kitchen Boulevard is nothing if not your classic litter trap.  Knitted clumsily among the bushes, grass and building faces flanking this street

are bags, wrappings, paper, cups, cans and bottles – evidence of careless consumerism and littering running wild.

I travel this road, whose upkeep is divided among several private development companies, and my heart sinks.   My memory of these lands is long.  Half a century ago an open expanse of green housed a modest headquarters for Old Spice and the emerging hardware powerhouse Lansing BuildALL.  We would bike over to the clear stream that is now a polluted watercourse running parallel to the road I’m talking about. It forms a pond on the last undeveloped portion of the lands.

Evidence of human contamination is everywhere.  When the road was first built, it was attractive.  After years of use and commercial activity, the decline is undeniable.

The last straw for me was the sight of a struggling street tree strangled in plastic bags on the boulevard outside Mr. Greek Restaurant.  After driving by it all winter and procrastinating, I finally resigned myself to making the complaint call, first to the property manager’s front line woman, and then to the corporate VP because aforementioned staff person was rude, let’s say not very customer-friendly.

Customer service is all about listening and then acting.

If you want action on a complaint, email a corporate executive, like a Vice President or CEO.  That route took all of five minutes to produce results, and came with an apology, a status report and a successful freeing of the plastic from that poor tree within 24 hours.  Just in time for spring!  I must give credit to upper management at FirstGulf, a company that takes its reputation seriously and gave the litter complaint the attention it deserved.  

Whether the result of a midnight prank by a couple of young male drunks or the wind’s wicked hand the plastic was tied so tightly that one fair-sized knot of it remains at the tip of one thin branch. 


Not that I'm complaining . . .
1 Comment

Ontario's smoking ban adds to cigarette butt litter pile

1/1/2015

1 Comment

 
On January 1, 2015 an expanded ban on smoking in public places takes effect in Ontario.

The new law boots smokers from patios, parks and sports fields and is the provincial government’s much-vaunted companion to its existing Smoke Free Ontario curtailments.  For example, already in Ontario, tobacco products cannot be openly displayed or advertised and it’s against the law to smoke indoors or in vehicles carrying children.

Smoking location bans may arouse cheers from those of us sick and tired of stifling secondhand smoke choking our leisure activities from dining out to a day at the beach.  Superficially banning smoking appears to be a good thing that makes for great PR.  But Ontario’s new law has problems.  During my presentation to Toronto Board of Health early in 2014 I pleaded with politicians to develop a strategy for the cigarette butt litter the new law will generate.

Ontario’s smoking ban constitutes a licence for smokers to litter.  As well as banning smoking at entranceways the law limits the placement of ash receptacles.

In controlled environments, smokers will use ashtrays.  Pushing them to the margins, as the Smoke Free Ontario law does, smokers will flick their butts on streets, sidewalks, parking lots and lawns.   

Everywhere in the world the push is on to put a chokehold on tobacco product litter.  As a full-time litter researcher, I chronicle the campaigns from UK, AU, USA and around the globe at www.litterpreventionprogram.com .  

I do not know why Ontario refuses to look at the issue, but my point here is that as of tomorrow under the new Smoke Free Ontario legislation, guaranteed, a prolific butt litter problem in this province is about to get worse.

A new study from a Japanese Univeristy (Kyoto) took a close look at the 140+ municipal smoking bans that do exist and found, surprisingly, that health was not the driving reason for bans.  Instead these moves to ban smoking were made to deter smokers from littering in those public places after indoor bans sent the smokers out of doors. 

In Japan they have a culture of respecting cleanliness and tidiness.  There you find enforcement of littering laws.  Litter education is mandatory in Grade 4.  

Ontario officials like to say that littering is a municipal official not requiring higher-level government involvement.  Interesting then that municipal enforcement officers are not empowered to lay charges under the Smoke Free Ontario Act.

When I first heard this at a City of Toronto working group meeting on litter I was stunned.  Under the new law municipal authorities are not the enforcers of the patio ban, the beach ban, the park ban, the ban on cigarette sales on campuses.  Municipal bylaw inspectors are impotent: only provincial health officers have the power to tag offenders.

This is Ontario’s stand:  You usher in a ban.  To start with, you have no enforcement plans, no plan for a cigarette butt litter awareness campaign. You don’t allow ash receptacles where they are needed.  In fact you tie municipal hands. And lastly, you give no funding or attention whatsoever to quelling the undesirable habit of littering, cigarettes being the most prolific on a long list of garbage-on-the-ground items.  Is this not crazy?  

Sixty-five per cent of smokers litter their butts, it is estimated.  There are all kinds of nasty chemicals in those cigarette and cigar ends, and the e-cigarette waste is a whole other noxious stream in the making. Research provides strong environmental arguments for taking action. 

If smokers can’t quit smoking at least they can quit littering.

No self-respecting province should be without a strategy for dealing with cigarette butts, which now can be recycled if captured not strewn.

The introduction of new Smoke Free Ontario clampdowns is an ideal time to get our butts moving on a litter prevention strategy.

Sometimes a kid’s first introduction to smoking comes with the discovery of a littered cigarette butt.
1 Comment
<<Previous

    Author

    SHEILA WHITE is President and CEO of WORDS Media & Communications Inc and is founder and publisher of this website andThis Week In "Litterland" newsletter.

    Archives

    March 2021
    December 2020
    May 2020
    June 2019
    December 2018
    January 2016
    November 2015
    April 2015
    January 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    Environment
    Litter Prevention
    Ontario Politics
    Sheila White
    Toronto

    RSS Feed