Let's Talk Garbage, Literally

ceat_garbage.jpgWe all make it. Some make less than others, but we all make non-recyclable, non-compostable garbage, and it has to go somewhere (because I don't want it my backyard, and I'm sure you don't either).

Toronto currently transports about 750,000 tonnes of waste annually (that's about 80-85 trucks every day) to Michigan landfill, but this arrangement is short-term and has been volatile.

Tackling this rather important issue is a huge task, which is why City Council established the Toronto Community Environmental Assessment Team (CEAT). CEAT's primary mandate is to help the city find a solution for the long-term management of our residual solid wastes.

Which landfill sites are suitable? Should we be incinerating instead? How can we reduce the quantities of solid waste? How can legislation improve the situation? These are all questions that need to be answered.

CEAT has already begun an important phase in their work, and they need your input. This fall, a number of public consultation events that are being held around the city. Your opinions need to be heard and your and concerns need to be addressed.

To help you and I to better understand the role of CEAT and the public in the process, the city has prepared this list of FAQs.

Let's talk garbage so we're not swimming in it when 2010 rolls around!

Reader Reviews and Comments

Submit a Review or Comment

I've always though we should incinerate. It's how they do in in Denmark - a country ahead of our own in terms of environmental policy - and they are able to use the energy to heat homes. I believe the environmentalists who killed this idea in some of Toronto's surrounding suburbs recently were only accessing environmental studies on incineration done in the 70s when the technology was still new. Much has changed. Will hopefully be attending one of those meetings. Thanks for the notice.

Posted by: sookie at October 11, 2006 11:06 AM

No incineration process is without emissions, and the golden horseshoe has an issue of that sort already.

Japan incinerates most of its solid waste, and has the highest levels of dioxins (these are as nasty as toxins get) in it's air and water relative to all indutrialized nations. This is all just "what I've heard" though, not solid info.

It's hard to know what the better option is when citizens like myself aren't very knowledgable on the facts about current technologies.

I'm hoping CEAT helps us in this regard!

Posted by: jerrold at October 11, 2006 11:16 AM
  1. We cannot afford incineration. Burning trash is more expensive than burying it. "landfilling at Green Lane is bound to be safer, more secure and much less expensive than any of the new incineration technologies Ms. Pitfield is proposing".
  2. "deaths from smog will jump from 4,890 to 8,870 in 20 years -- an increase of about 81 per cent." That's "Assuming no changes in air pollution levels over the coming years".
  3. I saw 4 people wearing shorts and T shirts on Sunday. It's October! We have to reduce our green house gas emissions not increase them.
(The first link is via Google because the Globe and Mail content is otherwise not freely available.)
Posted by: citizen at October 11, 2006 9:48 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

Email This Entry

Email 'Let's Talk Garbage, Literally' to: Message (optional):
Your email address:

Please type the verification code displayed in the image:

By forwarding this entry to a friend, we do not opt you or your friend into
receiving any additional mailings from blogTO. We hate spam too.
Disclaimer: Comments and blog entries represent the viewpoints of the individual and no one else.