There are two types of people:  people who litter and people who don’t.

For each type there are two categories: active and passive.

There are two kinds of littering: intentional and accidental.

Let’s focus on the intentional littering. Nothing much we can do to control cargo spills, catastrophic weather events, refugee migrations, the unintentional events when garbage can escape to litter the land and seas.

But there’s a whole lot we can do to control the kind of littering that’s deliberate, encompassing anything from a dropped or flicked cigarette butt or spat piece of chewing gum to the takeout packaging, beverage and coffee cups left behind or hurled on the go.  The first and most obvious thing to say here is, just don’t do it.

Non-litterers do not litter. Full stop.  They dispose of their garbage responsibly and properly.  That’s not to say that they don’t accidentally litter from time to time.  A tissue escaping from a pocket, a paper on the dashboard picked up by the wind and sucked out of the car window, an item that dropped, went wayward, was lost on the ground somewhere – occasionally this will happen to an avowed non-litterer.

The difference between an active non-litterer and a passive non-litterer is that an active type will pick up litter. Passive litterers don’t feel they should have to pick up any litter. They feel that job belongs to the people who put it there.  Their rationale goes like this: “I don’t litter so I don’t see why I should have to pick up someone else’s.”  It might also include a statement that picking up litter is “the city’s job.”

An active non-litterer understands that the only way to solve the littering problem is to pick up after others.  There are several reasons why picking up is important.  One, clean spaces are less likely to attract littering because “litter begets litter.” Two, being seen picking up litter is a direct way to influence the thinking and behaviors of others.  This is the idea behind role modeling, that positive, active and visible engagement is influential.

Now let’s talk about the people who litter. The lowest ranked and least respected type is the active litterer.  Fortunately, this group comprises a vast minority of people who litter – about 12 per cent.  Not only do they litter and not care, active litterers would likely rudely refuse to correct their mistake if asked.  They embrace a range of chronic littering behaviors from routinely leaving their take away packaging in the restaurant parking lot, or at the roadside, to wholesale dumping activities.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, most in this group are young males.

Passive litterers are people who litter when it hampers their convenience or cramps their comfort.  Lack of bins is one common excuse they use for littering.  But unlike their active counterparts, the passive litterers will pick up litter when called on it. When their littering is pointed out to them, they will correct their behavior, then give one of several pat reasons that people give for their littering. They might apologize also.
It is a hopeful sign that 88 per cent of people who litter are willing to correct their littering when asked in most circumstances.  At the very least they will hear critical feedback and allow it to register.

That’s why it is so important to speak up about littering in a nice way when you see it happening. Odds are, the person who litters will be embarrassed into compliance.  Dare we dream that they learn something indelibly and accept that littering is wrong?

Now to the final leg of this theory: to solve littering we need everyone to move up a rung.

If you’re an active non-litterer, be more active. Pick up more. Report problems more. Speak up and teach more.

If you’re a passive non-litterer, make the incremental shift to active.  Join a clean team. Pick up litter once in a while.

If a passive litterer, deem yourself a passive non-litterer: look after your own disposables responsibly. Use a bin. That’s all. You don’t have to pick up litter, just don’t create any.
​
And to the hardcore, active litterer, why not consider graduating to the role of a passive litterer?  You may not be ready to use a bin or litter bag full time yet, but you could start using one when asked instead of getting angry.

This is my solution for lowering the rate of littering, which hovers around 40%.
 

January 20, 2020
 
To The Mayor & Members of the Executive Committee
City of Toronto
Toronto City Hall
​
RE:    Agenda Item EX12.1, Jan. 23, 2020   Ravine Strategy Implementation

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I am pleased to see a report advocating action on litter and invasive species in ravines. I wish to make a few points with respect to this.

Cleaning up is one of a package of actions required to prevent litter.  Using volunteers, cleaning up is the least expensive part of litter prevention. Adding a focused staff effort to the upkeep of ravines is commendable and needed, but what then?

The other planks of litter prevention are more costly and complex because they deal with behavioural change.  They include ongoing messaging, enforcement, a year-round plan, implementation of the existing fine structure, bin maintenance.

With respect to invasive species, in my neighbourhood alone, Dog-Strangling Vine has taken over portions of our local woodlot and has severely contaminated a number of private, commercial and public properties. Dog-Strangling Vine (DSV) is a known threat to the Monarch Butterfly.

I was able to stuff 30 oversized garbage bags of DSV cut down from these properties and dispose of them at no cost thanks to help from our city parks supervisor, but this doesn’t begin to make a dent on the overall problem. Awareness of this provincially identified invasive species of plant is very, very low.  Toronto needs to alert residents on the management of Dog-Strangling Vine and other invasive species.

In my opinion the City lacks communication on these issues.  There is no proactive body looking to deal with littering as a specific social problem that needs to be addressed.  There is a lack of programs and information that could assist individuals and community groups in their desire to keep communities clean and free of unwanted, invasive varieties of non-native plants.

I have several suggestions for building on the advocacy that is inherent in the staff report.  It is my hope that there are some anti-litter champions on Toronto Council who will move these ideas forward as formal recommendations.  Namely,                                                                                                         

• Look into using camera technology for litter law enforcement on the roads,
• Use fines collected for litter prevention and abatement,
• Study the formation of a broader education and enforcement effort, a blitz by police, for example, or patrolling green wardens,
• Provide stock information through website and council member newsletters,
• Adopt an email litter prevention tag line, such as “Please help keep our City Litter Free”, a slogan found at the end of all emails from Brantford Deputy Mayor, Councillor  John Utley,
• Investigate forming a Mayor’s Litter Cabinet, involving citizens, staff, retailers and product makers, to address litter prevention on an ongoing basis,
• Develop ways and means to make it free and easy for citizens to dispose of litter and invasive plants they collect,
• Develop information on how to abate Dog-Strangling Vine and distribute it to community groups citywide.
  
  

I am a litter prevention specialist. To my knowledge I am the only entity registered to lobby Members of Council on the topic of litter. I produce a free, weekly newsletter “This Week In “Litterland”, which most of you have chosen to receive. I welcome the opportunity to discuss littering and DSV with individual Members, field questions and respond to requests for information from you, your staff and constituents at any time.
Thank you for taking the time to read this submission and consider the ideas presented.

​Sincerely,
 
Sheila White

There will be no shortage of people to call me a killjoy. Go ahead, tell me to a suck a lemon. I’m still going to say what I have to say about the Toronto Raptors delicious NBA victory and the celebrations that followed.

“Another excuse for people to act like idiots” is a phrase I’m stealing from my neighbour who heard it from a friend who was describing this sporting event’s effect on fan behaviour.

Some of the customs associated with the delirium of reverie have no place in the 21st Century.
 
The endless exhausting of car fumes as vehicles parade through the downtown streets, for example.  No one’s thinking about the climate crisis, but no doubt we should be. There are bylaws against excessive idling in Toronto – one minute maximum. With all we know about the heating of the globe, idling should be passé, at the very least frowned upon.  But our sports team just won a trophy! Who cares about carbon emissions at a time like this?  Ditto the environment.   People leave their garbage strewn everywhere. 

Sometimes celebrations involve polluting tickertape, balloon releases, fireworks, glitter and confetti, all emblems of another era.  Cleanup tasks are enormous afterwards. While Ontario claims to be working on an anti-litter strategy and Canada is trying to link litter prevention to its announced ban on some single-use plastic items, you’d never know it judging from the mess caused by exuberant revelers after the Toronto Raptors clinched its historic first NBA Championship.

The day after the big win, areas of downtown had to be closed to undertake the massive cleanup, and at what cost? Taxpayers and the environment both pay a price. Yet, from police spokespeople during the debriefing came not a mention, not a reminder, not even a breath devoted to saying littering is a crime.  They focused on the good news part of the story -- that there were no melees, no injuries.  I give Toronto fans credit for that, but when I review footage of a non-stop, snaking line of slow moving vehicles I can’t shake the stupidity of dumb humans.

When I ask myself in incredulous fascination, ‘What planet am I on?’ the answer is inescapable, “the only planet we’ve got.” 

Imagine this: An anti-litter campaign married to a big-time sporting event in one of the world’s greatest cities. 
 
The NBA Championship will hit Toronto this week for the first time starting Thursday night.  Is there no more natural a union for litter prevention than with a sport that involves putting something in a basket? 
 
McDonald's tried a two-week advertising campaign in Germany some years back in connection with world soccer and litter: Same idea, different sport.  It reaped results, a 62 per cent increase in bin usage over the course of the promotion. 
 
Scotland linked its national anti-litter initiative to the 2014 Commonwealth Games it hosted in Glasgow.
 
For Toronto, Ontario, where littering behaviors are prolific and, although unlawful, frequently go unchecked, this is an opportunity to target a demographic associated with littering: ages 18 to 35, and smokers.
 
An anti- litter campaign/contest would benefit everyone. Clean city, great environment, lower costs, higher property values, less crime.
 
The Toronto Raptors’ championship run has all the right elements for a superb awareness push: sports celebrities, corporate sponsors, a major league with an established fan base and social media channels, TV opportunities, community engagement possibilities, and an unbeatable theme, a natural tie-in: “Put It In The Basket”.   It presents the chance to involve partners like beverage, fast food, confectionery, packagers and others whose products contribute to the litter stream.

Other places hold little prevention contests, everything from trash can-painting for kids in Montana to car giveaways in Texas.
 
Texas gave away a car as part of a statewide anti-litter sweepstakes. University of Northern Tennessee student Justin Truby, of Denton, received the keys to his 2016 Ford Fusion SE Hybrid during a Dallas Cowboys - Washington Redskins game in front of a hometown stadium crowd in Arlington on January 3. It was a big deal, done to mark 30 years of “Don’t Mess With Texas”, a celebrated anti-litter campaign.
 
Encouraging people not to litter during the NBA finals in the City of Toronto would be akin to a slam-dunk for litter prevention, which doesn't receive the attention it deserves for a problem of its size. 

I couldn’t stand the sight a moment longer. So I took 90 minutes today to clean up a heavily littered area at the edge of my community in Toronto.  I grew sick of seeing plastic flapping in the trees and garbage all along the fence line and boulevard every time I drove by.

​There’s a bridge, a Highway 401 overpass, at the beginning of the strip of ground I cleaned. Now, when I say clean, I mean to the micro-level, every scrap captured no matter how small. As an experienced volunteer litter picker, very little escapes me. I didn’t go after cigarette butts. That would have required a separate endeavor altogether, there were so many of them.  Cellophane, foils and cigarette boxes were fair game though. Systematically I separated items that can be recycled from those that cannot. I collected other litter in a reusable sack and made three trips to the city litter bin near the transit shelter some distance away to deposit each load.

I had a big yellow garbage bag on the go too, stuffed it full of wayward large plastics, remnant plastic, coffee cups, tissues, paper wrapping and packing ties, cigarette boxes, snack and candy wrappers ...  You get the picture. This oversized large bag I hauled back home with me and I’ll use a pricey bag tag to legally place it out for the next curbside collection.  A great system, isn’t it, where a person has to pay to get rid of garbage not of their own making as well as donate the volunteer hours to clean it up in the first place?

Back at the scene, abutting the base of the bridge, is a narrow strip of land running parallel to the highway behind a chain link fence.  Next to it is a parcel of land behind a broken down wooden fence.  The property doesn’t appear to be part of anyone’s backyard and it is awash with garbage that has come to rest there either through accidental or deliberate actions.  The area behind the fence did not receive the benefit of my tidying.  In my mind I could see this orphaned and neglected parcel converted into a beautiful open space and garden once cleared of its considerable trash.

The Province of Ontario owns the strip of land beside the bridge. I was able to get the private company that cleans up this section of the highway to do a special litter pick at this location last summer.  It was next to impossible to get it done and I was told it was a one-time-only deal because such cleanups were over and above the terms of the company’s contract with the Ministry of Transportation.  A ministry investigation determined the litter was not emanating from the highway above and concluded the area was adequately shielded from litter from raining down by a tall fence bordering that section of the highway.  I was told the origin of the area’s litter was at ground level, meaning from homes and businesses, passing cars, trucks, and pedestrians.

I wonder what would be the most effective way to convince them to take proper care of their waste and always use a “garbage can”?

I keep plugging away, week after week, churning out the headlines, following the trail, making a big deal out of the act of littering, no innocent deed, rather one that causes harm, injury and aggravation. Why does society bury this issue? I know that against natural disasters and the horrendous destruction caused by war the idea of littering as a problem may seem small, but that's no reason not to give it attention. People don't talk about the littering epidemic enough. I'm proud to be uncovering the dirt on littering, putting all these odd but important stories together in one place, hoping to convert a few littering people along the way. I make it easy for people to talk about litter. Every issue of my "Litterland" newsletter is a collection of conversation starters to help deliver the message that littering is wrong and unwanted all around the world. Subscribe. It's free. Share it. Post it. Use it to educate and do something to change littering behaviors. I make litter front page news because it matters. Stopping littering would be a huge win for the planet.
As a subscriber your copy of "Litterland" has active links to tools, backgrounders and resources. Below is the 237th weekly issue I've produced and you will find them all on this website.

You know the people who say they “won’t bore you with the details”?  They lie.

Rather than do that, I will declare upfront: I might bore you with details. So unless you are interested in “Waste-Free Ontario”, stop reading right now.

In Ontario there is a law being designed to compel the creation of less waste from those who make consumer goods.  I had occasion to respond to Bill 151 before the public consultation process closed for this so-called Waste-Free Ontario Act on February 29. 

The legislation had recently received Second Reading. Politicians doled out opinions galore. But I felt they had missed something – a big something.  How can a bill that deals with waste in the Province of Ontario fall silent on the matter of litter?

If I haven’t lost your readership, here’s your chance to pretend you are the bureaucrat at the receiving end of the following submission.  Would you concede a point or two, or bury this brief at the bottom of a tall stack? (This is where a mustard-yellow flag may wave: ‘caution, may be boring’. My hope is for otherwise as
I unload onto you my Litter Prevention Program’s three-page online submission to the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. 

Question, where would you rank litter as an issue – at the top or the bottom of the pile, or somewhere in between?

Reference: EBR Registry number 012-5834
Re: Bill 151, “Waste-Free Ontario Act”.

While laudable in its aims this legislation as written can never live up to its name.

I question the use of the term “end of life” waste in the legislation.  This is the loophole language that has enabled a significant segment of waste in Ontario to be ignored. What I’m referring to is litter, an unlawful behaviour that is pervasive and growing, evident to anyone who casts an eye to the ground while travelling highways and byways of this province. 

“End-of-life” has come to mean waste that is placed in a bin for recycling or disposal. The province of Ontario has no strategy for dealing with waste that is not at the end of its life. This is hugely problematic in an era when everyone from Pope Francis and Charles, through his Prince’s Trust, to the European Commission and EU is sounding alarm about the need for litter reduction and behavioural change.  How can Bill 151 be amended to address a longstanding omission to its waste management legislation?
Ontario producers, provincial agencies and the Ministry itself use the “end-of-life” jargon to excuse their lack of action on litter. Keeping in mind that total recycling equates to zero litter, and that 80 per cent of all litter in waterways had its origin on land, does it not make sense to go after this orphaned piece of the waste-free Ontario dream?

Existing laws in place to promote waste management best practices and bolster recycling rates in the Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI) sector are not followed. 

I refer you to Reg. 103/94 2.1.3, more than two decades on the books and zero evidence of required practices ever having been put into play. 

To reiterate what was confirmed to this writer by the Ministry of the Environment several years ago, this is a legal requirement in Ontario.  Yet it is little known, routinely ignored and not enforced.  Quoting:

A Guide to Source Separation of Recyclable Materials for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Sectors and Multi-Unit Residential Buildings
As Required under Ontario Regulation 103/94
2.1.3 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.  End quote.
 
The point I’d like to make both about the abovementioned regulation and the proposed Bill 151, legislated directives for better waste management are meaningless without follow-up: scrutiny and enforcement that is vigilant and well-communicated along with budgeted resources for funding reasonable measures for the initiative’s success.

Case in point: Had the ministry budgeted for a program to ensure that ICI partners had filed their annual reports at least once a year since 1994, the public would be far advanced in its understanding of the importance of using bins for waste.  Education and awareness do result in higher recycling participation rates and litter level reductions.  It can be argued that Ontario’s diversion rates would be much higher than where they stand today, at 25% overall and 13% in ICI.

It appears that Bill 151 offloads enforcement to a third party. This removes a level of direct accountability that the public deserves to have. Implicitly, a citizen should have direct link to the enforcement arm through government to have breaches to the Act investigated and a certain transparency to the process.
The public needs a clear reporting line to the proposed new oversight body, the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority, deemed responsible for enforcement. 

Turning attention to Section 70, then, an opportunity exists in Bill 151 to promote and educate.

Responsibility for promotion and education
   70.  (1)  For the purpose of increasing the collection, reuse, recycling or recovery of material in a designated class, a regulation 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.
   (2)  For the purpose of increasing the collection, reuse, recycling or recovery of material in a designated class, a regulation may provide that persons performing an activity that relates to resource recovery or waste reduction in Ontario other than a person described in subsection (1) are responsible for implementing a promotion and education program in respect of the collection of material in a designated class in accordance with the regulations. 

I believe these sections of the bill should be a requirement -- non-discretionary. This regulation should be crafted so as to ensure that there is absolute follow-through.  The language in 70 (1) indicates a regulation may provide for this, but does not say “shall” provide.  That in itself creates wiggle room enough to possibly replicate the inert status of Reg. 103/94 2.1.3 where promotion and education failed to materialize.

Among questions prompted by Bill 151, will the legislation be sufficient to hold tobacco companies responsible for cigarette butt litter, chewing gum manufacturers for gum litter strategies, waste management companies and haulers for flyaway litter escaping their cabs, people and corporations from dumping? Will there be education concerning the proliferate tossing of coffee cups, lids, straws and bottles?

Tobacco is federally regulated. How will tobacco manufacturers be bound by Bill 151?  Will they be “required to implement a promotion and education program in respect of the collection system or management system for that class in accordance with the prescribed requirements”?

The goal of achieving a circular economy and waste-free society in Ontario hinges upon the availability of sustained education for all age groups.  Despite this province’s extraordinary Blue Box infrastructure and introduction of the 3R approach 35 years ago, participation rates remain tepid and flat. That’s why a Section 70 with teeth is crucially important to the success of this legislation.

Again, moving to a waste-free culture demands that we deal with waste that defies the “end-of-life” definition. The Ontario Legislature should engage itself in the issue of waste that is not at the “end-of-life” as the British Parliament did last year when it held committee hearings, fact-finding and outreach for UK’s Litter Inquiry.

Witness Belgium’s recent pledge, aiming to have 20 per cent less litter by 2022 compared to 2014 levels. In Belgium (population 11.2 million) producer groups are committing to fund a national litter prevention program, estimated by Clean Europe Network to be worth about €17 million annually.

Bill 151 can be viewed as an excellent beginning.  One would hope to see a committed time frame for the implementation and meeting of all objectives, and public reporting on an ongoing basis.  Shown below in italics are my responses and questions re Bill 151’s objectives. 

Divert more waste from disposal by
collecting data and putting performance measures in place to enable the province to make evidence-based decisions and measure progress towards zero waste, including a litter audit and provincial litter index
using disposal bans to facilitate resource recovery and waste reduction;   Study the impact of disposal bans and fee hikes on dumping rates

 integrating multiple tools to foster collaboration allowing parties to work together to deliver a seamless system, to include  an umbrella Keep Beautiful or Keep Clean agency to deal with non-end-of-life waste.
Helping people reduce, reuse and recycle and not litter by increasing awareness of and participation in diversion activities through education and promotion.  A must-do.  (Who will be responsible for approving education and promotional activities aimed at increasing awareness?)
Stimulating markets for recovered materials by implementing modern environmental standards; and demonstrating provincial leadership through green procurement and undertaking litter prevention education and broader recycling of products within government ministries through Ontario companies such as TerraCycle.
 
In closing, I submit that:

1. The bill should be subject to public hearings to receive more input and promote greater awareness.
2. The term end-of-life waste in the bill is problematic and needs to be addressed.
3. Education and promotion must be required  by the legislation, not a discretionary item.
4. Ontario should lead in the establishment of a review of non-end-of-life waste.
   

Still with me, friends? Thanks for reading!  - Sheila

Imagine this: An anti-litter campaign married to a big-time sporting event in one of the world’s greatest cities. 
 
The NBA All-Star game hits Toronto in February for the first time.  Is there no more natural a union for litter prevention than with a sport that involves putting something in a basket? 
 
McDonald’s tried a two-week advertising campaign in Germany some years back in connection with world soccer: Same idea, different sport.  It reaped results, a 62 per cent increase in bin usage over the course of the promotion. 
 
Scotland linked its national anti-litter initiative to the 2014 Commonwealth Games it hosted in Glasgow.
 
For Toronto, Ontario, where littering behaviours are prolific and frequently go unchecked, this is an opportunity to target a demographic associated with littering.
 
An anti- litter campaign/contest would benefit everyone.
 
The All-Star basketball event has all the right elements for a superb awareness push: sports celebrities, corporate sponsors, a major league with an established fan base and social media channels, TV opportunities, community engagement possibilities, and an unbeatable theme, a natural tie-in: “Put It In The Basket”.   It presents the chance to involve partners like beverage, fast food, confectionery, packagers and others whose products contribute to the litter stream.

Other places hold little prevention contests, everything from trash can-painting for kids in Montana to online slogan searches in Australia.

Texas just gave away a car as part of a statewide anti-litter sweepstakes. University of Northern Tennessee student Justin Truby, of Denton, received the keys to his 2016 Ford Fusion SE Hybrid during a Dallas Cowboys - Washington Redskins game in front of a hometown stadium crowd in Arlington on January 3. It was a big deal, done to mark 30 years of “Don’t Mess With Texas”, a celebrated anti-litter campaign.
 
In Ontario government circles, there exists not the faintest inkling of interest or infrastructure for tackling littering behaviours and reducing the amount of trash people throw on public lands.
 
Special events come and go, and it seems what the politicians most care about is rubbing shoulders with the who’s who, getting free stuff, glad-handing, and crowing in the media and on Twitter.
 
When it comes time to do something really meaningful around litter, you won’t find those decision makers anywhere around.  And that’s unfortunate. Influential voices encouraging the people of Toronto to use a ‘basket’ for litter is something we don’t hear enough of.  

Done right, a campaign during the NBA-Fest would be equivalent to a slam-dunk for litter prevention.

More than one thousand days, that’s how long I have been scanning the global internet to find stories about littering. Daily, consecutively, I and my mug of tea have been regular and constant companions in a search for the key to solving society’s unyielding litter problem, mining for litter stories and always finding plenty, until today.

For the first time in 1000+ days there is no pay dirt. Mark November 2, 2015 in the litter history book, the first day in more than a thousand that not a single litter story has surfaced from any corner of the world.
Now that doesn’t mean nobody littered. (I wish.)  It just means yesterday was Sunday, a slow news day, rare and therefore remarkable.  Tomorrow the litter news tap will flow again when today's reports reach my feed.

In the vague distance I can almost discern the sound of mumbling voices saying, “Get a life!”
But I swear litter is an important topic that requires monitoring on a global scale as well as personally and locally.

Had I not the interest in littering and a passion for bundling this news for broader consumption, I would have missed some landmark stories this week. The landscape of litter policy is a moving target – always something to shoot at.

I would not have known, for example, there now exists a free guide for food service establishments on tackling litter, a joint project of Keep America Beautiful, National Restaurant Association, and the National Packaging Association.  Give one of these to every food seller, vendor and restaurateur.
I would have been unaware of a national legislative change in Bolivia that promises to come down hard on people who dump and litter.

I wouldn’t have known about the launch of the world’s first open online university course on marine litter (MOOC), a UNEP-backed initiative.

Nor would I have known about the latest marine litter studies that alert us as clear as warning buoys: plastic litter is imperilling the ocean’s health - a priority problem that must be addressed.   I don’t care whether it’s Hong Kong, the Great Barrier Reef or the remote Barents Sea in the Arctic, research is all pointing to the same conclusion.

We need to get a grip on litter.

Just because I have not been blogging doesn’t mean I don’t have litter on my mind every single day.

Some seem not to notice garbage strewn about on grass and paths. Through the litter lens remnant trash is unmistakable and undeniable.  The adolescent generation, in particular, seems not to care about littering.

I visited three schools serving my neighbourhood. If my broad, sweeping and wholly unscientific assessment of the schoolyards is any indication, the breakdown in litter awareness occurs as children enter high school.

The junior public school grounds were spotless.  Similarly, our senior public school was not only cosmetically appealing, but free of litter as well, except for a scrap here and there in the parking lot.

Over at the secondary school an entirely different landscape meets the surveyor’s gaze.  Ironically, on our way to deliver a donation to express the community’s thanks for the handful of students who volunteer for us, the front lawn area is a neglected mess.

Of course I picked up what I could. There were two of us, one to deliver the cheque to the door and one, as it turned out, to stay behind and observe.

A tri-sorting waste bin sat steps away.

I noticed the student perched on a ledge buried in her phone, oblivious to anything I was doing.  First I picked up and bagged eight bottles and one can.  These I put in the compartment for recycling. I always try to have bag or two on hand to use for litter retrieval.  In this case my bag worked well to hold the many plastic cups and food related containers. Thankfully there were seven or eight unused Pizza Pizza paper napkins that served as hand wipes and which I composted at home later.

Apparently all Toronto District schools use the Green Bin now for organic composting. Maybe that’s just in theory because there was no immediate place for compostable food waste and wrappers.

I put the garbage in the section where a now-faded sign once had clearly indicated it was intended for litter.  I removed two lidded plastic cups with straws and liquid still inside that were wedged in the section of the bin marked Newspaper and redirected them all the way into the litter bin.

How stupid are these kids?  I ask myself, and what’s wrong with the system that’s producing them?  They are the reason the litter problem has grown so much worse.

This week a study attempted to explain the litter gap in youth by attributing the growth in littering to an increasingly narcissistic generation of young people marked by inflated feelings of self-importance (often a convenient mask for low self-esteem.) 

Rightist website conservativehome.com picked up on this point and linked it to littering in an excellent article by Peter Franklin:
Heresy of the week: Litter, self-esteem and why we could do with less of both 

I never thought I would find myself agreeing with any opinion from the online “home of conservatism”, but on littering I do.

Author David Brooks describes a surge in self-absorbed feelings among youth today versus 50 years ago in his recent book “The Road To Character.”  It’s not a far leap to suggest this has spawned a litter gap generation of 18-35 year olds in the 21st century.

“The proportion of American teenagers who believe themselves to be ‘very important’ jumped from 12% in 1950 to 80% in 2005. On a test that asks subjects to agree or disagree with statements such as ‘I like to look at my body’ and ‘Somebody should write a biography about me’, 93% of young Americans emerge as being more narcissistic than the average of 20 years ago…” Franklin quotes Brooks. 

As studies both in the US and here in my Toronto hometown verify, recycling and the whole notion of responsible stewardship of waste has failed to catch on with these up-and-comers.  It’s the older set that’s recycling.  Where did we as a society go wrong?  Somewhere between senior public and secondary school we failed to instill the non-littering habit as an unshakable core value.  Perhaps we should begin indexing and ranking properties for litter levels as they do in nations like Australia and Ireland.

At some point we lost the compass that could lead us out of the woods.  We failed to appeal to youth in a way that appealed to them, evidently.  Those who try, like my friend Elijah Mensah at the non-profit Help Change Ghana, should be heeded, supported and applauded.

I just want to say, “Hey, kids: Clean is the new dirty.”