Jump to content

Climate Change?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Kargokings said:

Looks like Cellophane , not plastic. 

Same but different (if that makes any sense 🤣)

“ That doesn't mean it's ecofriendly. In addition to using wood as a raw material, cellophane production requires toxic carbon disulfide. Also, cellophane could end up releasing methane, a powerful global-warming gas, if lodged in a landfill that lacks a methane recovery system. 

So it's not easy to pick a winner in this dreary packaging duel, especially when we toss out such a staggering amount of plastic bags and wraps instead of recycling them. (Most recyclers don't want this plastic mixed in with the rigid kind because it strangles their sorting machinery.) Only about 12 percent of all U.S. plastic bags and plastic-wrap packaging is recycled, which means that millions of tons are simply thrown away or incinerated. The consumption rate of plastic is hundreds of times that of cellophane, and the sheer volume of waste is overwhelming. The World Economic Forum has predicted that if we don't stop chucking so much, plastic will outweigh fish in the oceans by 2050.”




Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you could argue the same for paper but you are indeed correct re cellophane.


Residential recycling and disposal search tool

Locate your item in the A-Z Listing


How to dispose of cellophane

Put cellophane wrap in your black cart as garbage.

Cellophane is a clear packaging material that doesn't stretch like plastic wrap. It's used as the  seal on a frozen food dinner or wrapping used on cookies and crackers.

Why can't cellophane be recycled or composted?

While cellophane may look like plastic it is not. The material is semi-synthetic and is not suitable for recycling or composting.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadian Press

Alberta Appeal Court says federal environmental impact law not OK


CALGARY — The Alberta Court of Appeal says the federal government's environmental impact law is unconstitutional.

%7B © Provided by The Canadian Press

The Alberta government, calling it a Trojan Horse, had challenged the Impact Assessment Act over what the province argued was its overreach into provincial powers.

The act, given royal assent in 2019, lists activities that trigger an impact review and allows Ottawa to consider the effects of new resource projects on a range of environmental and social issues, including climate change.

Alberta had argued the law could use those concerns to greatly expand the range of federal oversight into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

A majority of five justices giving their legal opinion sided with Alberta.

"Intra-provincial activities are not immune from federal government regulation, providing that regulation remains within the constitutional dividing lines," Chief Justice Catherine Fraser wrote in the opinion released Tuesday.

It adds that legitimate concerns about the environment and climate change should not override the division of power.

"If the federal government believes otherwise, it should make the case for an increase in its jurisdiction to the Canadian public." 

A fourth judge signed off on that opinion with the exception of one section.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sheila Greckol said the federal environmental impact law is a valid exercise of constitutional authority.

"The federal environmental assessment regime ... prohibits projects ... that may have effects in federal jurisdiction — on fish and fish habitat, aquatic species, migratory birds, on federal lands or federally funded projects, between provinces, outside Canada and with respect to Indigenous peoples," she wrote.

"The complexities and the urgency of the climate crisis call for co-operative interlocking (of) environmental protection regimes among multiple jurisdictions."

Now is not the time to "give credence to any kind of 'Trojan Horse' metaphor advanced by Alberta and Saskatchewan," Greckol wrote. "Likening Canada to a foreign invading army deceptively breaching our protective walls, only fuels suspicion and pits one level of government against each other."

Alberta was supported in its challenge by the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario.

A wide array of environmental and legal groups intervened in supporting Ottawa.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 10, 2022.

Colette Derworiz, The Canadian Press

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GIGUERE: The harmful ban on single-use plastic products

Special to Toronto Sun - Yesterday 3:50 p.m.
FollowView Profile
Plastic shopping bags used to carry groceries.
© Provided by Toronto SunPlastic shopping bags used to carry groceries.

All signs point to the federal government going ahead with a ban on certain single-use plastic products, which would be a mistake. This restrictive measure will likely not have the effects that are hoped for, and even if it does, you can be sure that the Canadian economy will suffer for those gains.


It must be noted that the Canadian plastics industry, or more precisely the production of plastic products, represents nearly $25 billion and some 93,000 jobs. It therefore goes without saying that a ban on certain single-use products will have direct repercussions on jobs in this industry, and by extension on the Canadian economy. Ontario in particular accounts for more than half of total revenues from the production of plastic products in Canada.

Banning plastic shopping bags

Among the products targeted are plastic checkout bags, like the ones you find at the grocery store. What can we learn from international experience about this kind of measure?

First, while the banning of plastic shopping bags in California did effectively reduce the use of this product, it had the side effect of increasing — and substantially so — the use of thicker garbage bags. This replacement of thinner plastic bags by thicker ones worked against the goal of the measure; instead of reducing the carbon footprint, the ban increased it.

Australia’s results were similar to California’s. Certain researchers have maintained that since the use of plastic shopping bags only decreased marginally, the ban does not seem to have had any effect on the reduction of marine pollution.

Alternatives to plastic shopping bags are not automatically better for the environment, either, as they need to be used many times to reduce the environmental impact. For example, certain cotton bags need to be used from 100 to 3,657 times in order to be less harmful to the environment than plastic bags, which is not exactly what you would call an ecological solution. Given these results, it’s clear that the federal government must adopt a different method than banning certain plastic products.

Moreover, food packaging, largely made up of single-use plastics, helps avoid food waste. A 2020 poll found that the typical Canadian family wastes the equivalent of $1,100 of food a year. This highlights the need for the government of Canada to avoid the path of banning single-use plastics.

Entrepreneurs find solutions

Instead of resorting to ineffective restrictions, the federal government should rely on entrepreneurial solutions. Modix Plastique, a company located in Quebec, is an interesting example, since it can already recycle plastic shopping bags. Why not let this kind of company innovate rather than banning a product?

Both the Canadian economy and the environment stand to gain if the government places its trust in solutions generated by entrepreneurs instead of imposing restrictive measures that will have direct negative effects on Canadian producers and consumers.

The best way for the government to encourage efficient recycling is to create the conditions needed to encourage technological developments through credits and tax cuts. In other words, it needs to put in place a competitive fiscal framework to attract companies and their innovations.

The objective of reducing plastic waste in the environment must be pursued, but the solution has to come from entrepreneurs, not from a restrictive policy banning certain products.

Gabriel Giguère is Public Policy Analyst at the Montreal Economic Institute.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I used those bags all the time, kitchen garbage, paint brushes and rollers, boot liners, archery target stuffing etc etc. Now I buy them, and that's OK but they're several times thicker than the grocery store bags, so maybe the greenies have outsmarted themselves. 

Pretty sure I now discard between two and three times more plastic than I did before they decided to save the planet.

The plastic straw thing is another foolhardy endeavour IMO, more and more I'm seeing them individually wrapped in plastic. I guess the straw is regulated but maybe the packaging isn't... I don't know, it seems pretty silly though.

Why not do something that matters and yields immediate measurable benefits, like driving the speed limit, or maybe we could stop pumping raw sewage into our oceans, or how about appliances that actually last and are capable of being economically repaired. And how is it that we can't manage to get clean water onto reserves? I get blank stares from greenies every time I ask them that one. Its the same bovine expression when you ask them to name what they want cut to hit accord targets.

Fridges, freezers, washers, driers, coffee makers toasters, microwaves etc are being replaced at an astounding rate... they're poorly made junk and clearly designed as throwaways. By way of comparison, the old Viking fridge my parents bought when I was a toddler is still going strong. 

The reality and unintended consequence sisters probably used to think this stuff was funny... maybe even cute. But now that we've doubled down on pure silliness I think they're getting annoyed. It's not cute anymore.

BTW, you don't want these girls mad at you... nothing good comes of it.


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Pain at the pumps hits weekend overdrive with $2.09 expected 

'This is the highest in my life. We can’t suffer like this,' one motorist complained. 

We're pushing about $8 a gallon now, still not enough to create the pain required for action. 

We're getting close with diesel though. It's a big cold country, everything comes by truck, our real economy (the one that effects you, we and us) runs on diesel. We need to hit that rent, vs food, vs getting to work decision point.

In the mean time though, all of this stands as proof that voters are not up to the climate change rhetoric they insist on voting for. They want cheap and easy in a world where achieving their stated goals is neither.

The weight loss industry thrives on that cheap and easy lie too... take a look at the obesity statistics year over year and see how that's working out for us.

Why not just commit... or not:


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saudi Aramco: Oil giant sees profits jump as prices surge

6 hours ago
A worker at an oil processing facility of Saudi Aramco in Abqaiq, Saudi ArabiaIMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Saudi Aramco has posted its highest profits since its 2019 listing as oil and gas prices surge around the world.

The state-owned energy giant saw an 82% jump in profits, with net income topping $39.5bn (£32.2bn) in the first quarter.

In a press release, the firm said it had been boosted by higher prices, as well as an increase in production.

The invasion of Ukraine has seen oil and gas prices skyrocket.

Russia is one of the world's biggest exporters but Western nations have pledged to cut their dependence on the country for energy.

Oil prices were already rising before the Ukraine war as economies started to recover from the Covid pandemic and demand outstripped supply.


Other energy firms including Shell, BP and TotalEnergies have also reported soaring profits as a result, although many are incurring costs exiting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dramatic and possibly deadly shortage of water yet.

California is in a water crisis, yet usage is way up. Officials are focused on the wrong problem, advocates say

Rachel Ramirez - 7h ago
FollowView Profile

California is facing a crisis. Not only are its reservoirs already at critically low levels due to unrelenting drought, residents and businesses across the state are also using more water now than they have in seven years, despite Gov. Gavin Newsom’s efforts to encourage just the opposite.

Newsom has pleaded with residents and businesses to reduce their water consumption by 15%. But in March, urban water usage was up by 19% compared to March 2020, the year the current drought began. It was the highest March water consumption since 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board reported earlier this week.

Part of the problem is that the urgency of the crisis isn’t breaking through to Californians. The messaging around water conservation varies across different authorities and jurisdictions, so people don’t have a clear idea of what applies to whom. And they certainly don’t have a tangible grasp on how much a 15% reduction is with respect to their own usage.

Kelsey Hinton, the communications director of Community Water Center, a group advocating for affordable access to clean water, said that urban communities — which typically get water from the state’s reservoirs — don’t seem to understand the severity of the drought in the way that rural communities do, where water could literally stop flowing out of the tap the moment their groundwater reserves are depleted.

“In our work every day, people feel how serious this is, and know that we need to be working toward real solutions to address ongoing drought,” Hinton told CNN. “But then living in Sacramento, you don’t see the same urgency here because we’re not reliant on groundwater and scarce resources in the same way that these communities are.”

But advocates say government officials are also focusing on the wrong approach. They say voluntary residential water cuts are not the solution, and that restrictions should be mandated for businesses and industries that use the vast majority of the state’s water.

“Corporate water abuse has to be addressed or no other measures will matter,” said Jessica Gable, a spokesperson for Food & Water Watch.

“The perception in California right now is it’s no secret any longer that drought is linked with climate change,” Gable told CNN. “But there has been no effort to curtail the industries that are using the most water, which are coincidentally the industries that are also sending out the most emissions that are fueling the climate crisis.”

Onus misplaced

Most of March’s spike in water usage came from water jurisdictions in Southern California. Usage in the South Coast hydrologic region, which includes Los Angeles and San Diego County, was up 27% over March 2020, for example, according to data provided by the state’s water board. Only the North Coast region saved water in March, cutting about 4.3% of its use.

Edward Ortiz, spokesperson for the State Water Resources Control Board, said March was a huge setback for the governor’s water goals.

“This is a concerning development in our response to the drought as a state,” Ortiz told CNN. “Making water conservation a way of life is one way Californians can respond to these conditions. Saving water should be a practice whatever the weather.”

He said Californians “need to redouble efforts to conserve water inside and outside of our homes and businesses.”

Last month, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California announced its most severe water restrictions for residents and businesses in the counties around Los Angeles, with a goal of slashing water use by at least 35%. Beginning June 1, outdoor water usage will be limited to one day a week.

But community advocates say residents wonder whether big water users are also faced with the same pressure and painful decisions to conserve – namely, agriculture that requires a large amount of water (things like almonds, alfalfa, avocado and tomatoes) or fracking, where tens of millions of gallons of water can be used to frack a single fossil fuel well.

Gable said that while every little bit matters, the repeated pleas for individuals to save water can “seem out of touch at best and possibly negligent,” given that the industries that could drastically cut back on the excessive amount of water allocated to them are rarely held accountable.

Amanda Starbuck, research director with Food & Water Watch, said cutting back on residential water use is like telling people recycling could save the planet. While it’s a meaningful action, she said it’s not going to make a dent in the crisis at large.

“It’s also kind of a little bit demeaning to blame residential use for these crises,” Starbuck told CNN. “It’s just a small sliver of the overall consumption. It’s a much bigger problem, and we really need to start bringing in these big industries that are guzzling water during this time of drought.”

A spokesperson for Newsom’s office told CNN that local water agencies have set new targets since March that should lead to lower usage — including the outdoor watering restriction — and more decisions are coming in front of the state board this month.

“We are hopeful these actions will significantly contribute to the state’s overall water reduction goals as outdoor watering is one of the biggest single users of water,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

The spokesperson also pointed to additional funding for water resiliency the governor announced in his budget proposal on Friday. That funding is part of $47 billion slated to tackle the impacts of the climate crisis in the state.

“With the infusion of additional funding, we will be able to more effectively reach Californians about the need to conserve along with the biggest water saving actions they can take, and support local water districts in responding to the drought emergency,” the spokesperson said.

Other sources are running dry

While much of the water conversation is focused on urban usage, Hinton said rural communities live with day-to-day anxiety that the water will stop flowing.

“The bigger story, at least for us, is when we are in the middle of drought like this, it’s not just shorter showers and stopping outdoor water use for our families,” Hinton told CNN. “Our families are worried that their water is just going to stop running all together.”

These are communities that don’t rely on reservoirs — where much of the focus has been for reaching critically low levels — but instead use private groundwater wells.

The big concern is that during extremely dry conditions, the state’s groundwater levels sink while more is pulled up for agriculture and other uses.

“The urgency is there with the families we work with, because they know what’s happened before,” she said. “We have folks who have had wells dry up since the last drought and have still not been able to afford to deepen them or get connected to a long-term solution.”

Blistering heat waves, worsening drought and destructive wildfires have plagued the West in recent years. As these vivid images of climate crisis play out, Hinton believes the state needs to prioritize the water needs of individuals over industry.

“Climate change has made drought a reality for us forever, and now, this is something that we have to deal with as a state,” Hinton said. “And the more that we can accept that and be proactive, the less we’re going to be constantly reacting to these situations of entire communities going dry or of urban areas having to cut water to this amount because we’ve already overused what was available to us.”

CNN’s Cheri Mossburg, Sarah Moon, and Stephanie Elam contributed to this report.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I wonder is they will wake up? You can not have your cake and eat it too. 🙃


Californians could see mandatory water cuts amid drought


SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened Monday to impose mandatory water restrictions if residents don't use less on their own as a drought drags on and the hotter summer months approach.

Newsom raised that possibility in a meeting with representatives from major water agencies, including those that supply Los Angeles, San Diego and the San Francisco Bay Area. The Democratic governor has avoided issuing sweeping, mandatory cuts in water use and instead favored giving local water agencies power to set rules for water use in the cities and towns they supply.

January through March typically is when most of California’s annual rain and snow falls, but this year those months were the driest in at least a century. Despite calls for conservation, the state's water use went up dramatically in March — 19% compared to the same month in 2020 — and now Newsom is considering changing his approach.

“Every water agency across the state needs to take more aggressive actions to communicate about the drought emergency and implement conservation measures,” Newsom said in a statement.

California is in its third year of drought and virtually all areas of the state are classified as either in severe or extreme drought. Due to low water levels in state reservoirs, the state is releasing only a limited amount of water from its supplies.

Newsom last summer called on Californians to voluntarily reduce their water use by 15% by doing things like taking five-minute showers and avoiding baths, only running the washing machine and dishwasher with full loads and limiting water use for cleaning outdoor areas. Water used for farming isn’t counted.

Several local water officials present in the meeting said the tone was positive and focused on how all of the agencies can work together to promote conservation.

“From our perspective it works best when local water managers deal with local water supply conditions, but we’re trying to support the state, we’re trying to support the governor as best we can,” said Ed Stevenson, general manager for the Alameda County Water District, who was in the meeting.

The district gets about 40% of its water from state supplies. It's water use is down about 7% since Newsom called for voluntary conservation.Loaded:

San Diego County Water Authority, meanwhile, hasn't needed any water from state supplies since July partly because it relies on a mix of other sources including a desalination plant, said board Chairman Gary Croucher. But he said the district still has a role to play in responding to the drought. The authority is made up of 24 water agencies including the city of San Diego, where water use is down 1.3% since Newsom called for savings.

“If anybody wants to say that we're independent and we're okay just by ourselves, they're fooling themselves. We really need to work together as a group of collaborators," he said.

How soon Newsom could impose mandatory restrictions if conservation doesn't improve wasn't clear. Spokesperson Erin Mellon said the administration would reassess conservation progress in just “a few weeks." She didn't offer a metric the administration would use to measure success.

Newsom has already moved to force more conservation from local water districts. The water board will vote Tuesday whether to ban watering of decorative grass and to force local agencies to boost conservation efforts.

After the last drought, the state started requiring cities and other water districts to submit drought response plans that detail six levels of conservation based on how much water is available. Newsom has asked the board to require those districts move into “Level 2" of their plans, which assumes a 20% water shortage.

Each district can set its own rules for “Level 2,” and they often include things like further limiting water use for outdoor purposes and paying people to install more efficient appliances or landscaping that needs less water. They must include a communication plan to urge conservation.

If approved those restrictions would take effect June 10. Water agencies that don't comply could be fined $500 per day, as could businesses or other institutions that continue to water ornamental grass, said Edward Ortiz, a spokesman for the water board.

Last week while touring a water recycling plant in Los Angeles County, Newsom spoke about better communicating the need for water conservation with the state's 39 million people. He's included $100 million in his budget for drought messaging.

During the last drought, in 2015 former Gov. Jerry Brown issued a mandatory 25% cut in the state's overall water use, and the state water board set requirements for how much each water district had to cut based on their existing water use; districts with higher water use were asked to cut more. Water agencies could be fined up to $10,000 per day if they didn't comply.

The state water board has imposed some statewide restrictions such as banning people from watering their lawns for 48 hours after rainstorms and sprinklers from running onto sidewalks. People can be fined $500 per day for violations.

Broadly, the state needs to be thinking about how to set California up to better deal with drought, said Dr. Newsha Ajami, a water expert at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who studied conservation messaging during the last drought.

“We need to have a long-term strategy for how we are going to deal with these more frequent hotter, drier droughts that we are experiencing and actually do things when we are not in the drought," she said.

Attendees at the meeting included representatives from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, East Bay Municipal Utility District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Alameda County Water District, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Valley Water, the San Diego County Water Authority, the Association of California Water Agencies, California Urban Water Agencies and the California Municipal Utilities Association. The meeting was not open to the press or public.

Kathleen Ronayne, The Associated Press


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


Don't even try to guess the future, like accident investigations, you will most likely get it wrong. Better to identify vulnerabilities and plan to mitigate them... a notion lost on politicians other than Trump IMO and he was widely ridiculed by people unable (or unwilling) to consider the consequences.  

So what comes immediately to mind as a vulnerability here?

There's lots, but I immediately jump to the worst case (it's a personality flaw).... domestic terrorist action against such a weakened electrical grid or maybe an EMP event (either natural or deliberate). At the low end of the scale, even heavy sales of EV vehicles will bring this cantankerous and foul smelling camel to it's knees. 

Inconvenience, and discomfort don't matter much to me, they serve as instructive. Big stuff isn't instructive though, it just hurts. When your objective (the green new deal) isn't supported by enabling objectives along the way, pain often follows unless you are lucky... I'm never lucky BTW.

The degree of pain is at the discretion of those two ladies in black I often refer to (and always defer to). Right now, they're wearing sweat pants, t-shirts, rubber boots and have their hair tied back in pony tails. Since that's not their normal attire, you should consider the notion that something may be up.

Your milage may vary, but in my experience, it will be something you don't like. 


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Falken said:

Thank God I had a gas generator!😏

Hopefully it doesn't have a chip in it.

Those old Harleys (with points and condensers) might soon become valuable... I'm thinking of getting a horse.


Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
WEF panelists have talked non-stop about climate change in the last few days, recommending policies that would be disastrous for Canada.
Another panelist called for a “recalibration” of free speech.
While the Davos elite travel in private jets and limousines, they’re lecturing you to do more to reduce your carbon footprint.
One of the Davos elites was bragging about his Chinese company, Alibaba, developing an “individual carbon footprint tracker.”
I’m not sure about you, Friend but I’ve never been on a private jet. Compared to those at the WEF conference, my carbon footprint is relatively small.
So why are Canadians being lectured about climate change?
Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The unjust transition: Canada’s energy sacrifice is hurting the world, not helping it

In 2020 China announced plans for 43 new coal plants and 18 blast furnaces that would emit an additional 150MT of CO2

The world needs Canadian energy more than ever, but by prioritizing our emission reduction over energy production we are leaving most of our resources in the ground—and leaving the world dependent on the likes of Russia.  

Some think this is worthwhile because it should slightly lower global emissions, and we should now focus on a “just transition” away from oil and gas. It cannot, however, be just to shift hundreds of billions in energy sales to autocratic regimes who disregard the environment and human rights. In fact, by emboldening actions like the invasion of Ukraine, this premature transition away from supplying the world’s energy needs isn’t just naïve, it is actually unjust.

Russia’s invasion should make it clear to most fair-minded Canadians that energy insecurity is a massive global threat. Without its energy hegemony over Europe, it is hard to imagine a Russia with the political or economic power to slog through an invasion of Ukraine.  

Canada does not have a large military or a large population from which to influence the world. It does, however, have the third-largest petroleum reserves. Standing next to candidates like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia should make Canada the belle of the energy investment ball. But our failure to build pipelines and our obsession with emission taxes and regulations led Canada’s share of global investment to fall 30 percent from 2010 to 2018.  

Canada’s loss is the world’s gain, right? Wrong. Oil production kept growing, and a look at the top ten oil-producing countries1reveals a gallery of rogues all too happy to profit from Canada’s hand-wringing.  


Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Plastic ban, appears to be more about hype instead of action.

According to the following Canadian plastic waste is mostly collected


Of the 3,268 kilotonnes of plastic waste Canada generated in 2016, 3,239 kilotonnes was “collected”— although most of that ended up in landfills rather than getting diverted to recycling.



Paper straws will soon be a permanent fixture in Canadian milkshakes following Ottawa’s confirmation of a timeline by which they will issue new federal bans on single-use plastics.


By 2024, it will be illegal for Canadian retailers to issue plastic shopping bags or restaurants to offer plastic takeout containers. Also caught in the ban are plastic stir sticks, plastic cutlery and plastic ring carriers, although there will be rare exceptions for disabled Canadians. “By the end of the year, you won’t be able to manufacture or import these harmful plastics,” Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said at an announcement in Quebec City.


Industry groups have critiqued the policy as Ottawa chucking another cost into an already rapidly inflating economy, while environmental groups have said the bans are a mostly cosmetic measure that leaves the bulk of Canada’s plastic waste untouched.


But the government’s own science shows that the ban is likely to have a negligible effect on the one thing it is most touted to address: ocean health.


Guilbeault made Monday’s announcement in front of the Saint Lawrence River and statements accompanying the new measure touted it as a boon for the health of Canada’s “beaches” and “shorelines.”


Environment Canada said the new regulations were based in part on a 2019 Deloitte study it commissioned to examine the state of the Canadian plastics market.


That study estimated that just one per cent of Canadian plastic waste was being lost to what they called “leakage,” meaning that it entered the environment as litter.


Of the 3,268 kilotonnes of plastic waste Canada generated in 2016, 3,239 kilotonnes was “collected”— although most of that ended up in landfills rather than getting diverted to recycling.


While the Deloitte study could not estimate how much of the leakage was reaching the ocean, they did recommend that it could be reduced 10-fold purely with efforts “to reduce litter” and made no mention of bans.


A scientific backgrounder that accompanied an early draft of the proposed federal plastics ban relied almost exclusively on data from the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup to estimate the effect of plastic on Canadian waterways.


In the cleanup’s 2018 report, plastic bags ranked sixth as the item most often recovered from shoreline cleanups, while straws were in ninth place. The worst offenders — including bottle caps — were items untouched by the new ban. Cigarette butts alone accounted for 42.1 per cent of all litter recovered, while more recent cleanups have seen rising rates of discarded surgical masks.


Nevertheless, Oceanwise — which organizes the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup — had praise on Monday for the new measures, saying it was “a victory for Canada.”


While ocean plastic is indeed a growing global problem, it’s one being driven almost exclusively by two factors: Abandoned fishing gear and poor waste management in the developing world.


The Trudeau government has actually been trying to fix the former problem — although the initiative has gotten way less attention and funding than their push to ban plastics. The Ghost Gear Program, begun in 2019, has spent roughly $8.3 million to remove 739 tonnes of abandoned fishing gear from the oceans.


This alone represents nearly one third of the estimated 2,500 tonnes of Canadian plastic litter that Deloitte estimates are finding their way into the environment each year — of which a fraction comprises the six items targeted by the new ban. What’s more, ghost gear is far more perilous to marine life due to its penchant to entangle sea creatures.


Nevertheless, Canada is not the first to begin enacting blanket bans on categories of single-use plastics. Most notably, last summer the European Union banned a slate of single-use plastics for which alternatives were available. This included all of the items on Canada’s list, as well as plastic plates, q-tips and the plastic sticks used to support balloons.


The most obvious opponent to the new regulations is a consortium of plastic producers who are in the process of suing the federal government.


Restaurants Canada — whose members will be most disproportionately targeted by the new measures — warned Monday that recent supply chain shortages have made it almost impossible to obtain sustainable alternatives to single-use plastics. “Nobody knew the supply would be that problematic,” spokesman Olivier Barbeau told The Canadian Press.


When Ottawa first raised the prospect of a ban on single-use plastics, Restaurants Canada filed a detailed reply warning that the measure could represent a “150 per cent cost increase” on an industry already decimated by COVID-19.  “In other jurisdictions that have implemented bans, such as San Francisco, litter audits have revealed that the volume of litter remained the same while the composition of the litter changed,” it read.


Greenpeace — which once counted Guilbeault as their Quebec bureau chief — called the measure a “critical step forward,” but claimed in a statement that it would “only cover less than 5 per cent of Canada’s 2019 total plastic waste generated.”


The group also cited OECD data to show that Canada plastic consumption is set to more than double over the next 40 years. By 2060, the OECD estimated that Canada would be consuming 1.2 billion tonnes of plastic as compared to just 460 million tonnes in 2016.


Environmental Defence, a group more explicitly devoted to fighting plastic waste, was more charitable towards the Trudeau government’s new measures. “We’ve been working toward this day for many years and are relieved it has finally come,” read a statement by spokesperson Karen Wirsig. The organization added that it was looking forward to “additional bans.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the liberals were serious about  environment, they could find an efficient way to recycle plastics. It’s not like they are shy about spending billions on programs. 
Guilbeault lost his credibility with this motion :


Scot Davidson, a Conservative member of Parliament for York-Simcoe, north of Toronto, has been pushing to ban the export of Canadian non-recyclable plastic waste. 

"Canada has to take responsibility," Davidson said. "We just can't lob our garbage over the fence to our neighbours and say, 'Out of sight, out of mind.'"

Last year, his bill to ban the export of non-recyclable plastic waste got widespread support from opposition parties. But the Liberals wouldn't back it. 

"I hate to be partisan, but sometimes, you have to be. This is all talk, no action. The Liberals proclaim to be the party of the environment," Davidson said.

"It was almost like they didn't want the Conservatives to have a win on the environment, so we're not going to vote for this bill."

Guilbeault told The Fifth Estate he disagrees with Davidson's characterization of why the Liberals voted against his bill.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Liberal government's single-use plastic ban, explained


Not everything on the list is banned, and some prohibitions won't take effect until 2025

Peter Zimonjic · CBC News · Posted: Jun 23, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago
The Liberal government's single-use plastics ban will eventually prohibit the manufacture and sale of plastic straws, with some exceptions for flexible straws due to their use by people with disabilities and in health-care settings. (Canadian Press)

This week the Liberal government announced it will ban some single-use plastic items in an effort to achieve zero plastic waste by 2030, but only a limited number of products fall under the ban and some of the prohibitions don't kick in until 2025. 

The six categories of single-use plastics being banned make up about three per cent of the plastic waste generated annually in Canada, and while the list is short, not everything on it is being outright banned.

For example, some plastic straws are banned but there are exceptions that only restricts others. 

CBC News took a look at the regulations to see what is being banned and when, how the policy announced this week will impact the campaign to cut back on plastics globally and what was left off the banned list. 

We also put a list of questions to Environment Canada, including some that were submitted by readers to the Ask CBC team. Some of Environment Canada's responses to those questions can be found below.

What products are being banned by these new regulations?

There are six categories of single-use plastic products that are being banned, including:

  • Checkout bags.
  • Cutlery.
  • Takeout ware with plastics that are hard to recycle.
  • Plastic aluminum can ring carriers.
  • Stir sticks.
  • Straws.

Why are plastic drink lids for disposable beverages not on the list?

While plastic cup lids are one of the top items found on shoreline cleanups, the federal government said that it settled on the six categories of products for a number of reasons: they are found in the environment during clean ups, they pose a threat to wildlife, they are difficult to recycle and they can be replaced with alternatives. 

"With regard to plastic lids used for disposable coffee cups in particular, limited alternatives to this item were identified as being available at this time," the government said in a statement. 

The federal government said it is continuing to monitor data and evidence and will decide if other single-use plastic products can and should be banned in future. 

Will this make much of a dent in Canada's plastic waste?

Not a large one.

According to environmental groups like Greenpeace Canada, the six categories of products only make up about five per cent of the total amount of plastic waste Canada created in a year, according to data from 2019. 

The federal government's estimate is even lower. In the regulation details published Wednesday, it estimated about three per cent of plastic waste created using data from 2019, or about 150,000 tonnes of plastic waste.

A box chart showing various squares that represent the end use markets for single-use plastics. The largest box is packaging representing 1.6 million tonnes. The second largest is construction at 1.2 million tonnes.

When do the bans kick in?

New rules will prohibit the manufacture and import of most items on the list for the purpose of selling them in Canada by Dec. 20, 2022. After that date the goods can still be sold in the country for another year. 

Plastic ring carriers, like those used to hold a six-pack of cans together, get an extra six-months grace. They can continue to be imported and manufactured for sale in Canada until June 20, 2023 and their sale is not banned until June 20, 2024. 

If the federal government wants to ban plastics, why is it giving such a long timeline for an export ban? 

CBC News put this question to the federal government and was told that after consultations with industry it was decided that a 42-month phase-out period would meet Canada's international commitments while minimizing the harm for industry. 

"A gradual phase-out allows Canadian businesses to minimize disruption to their operations, while transitioning out of the market for prohibited items in alignment with global market and regulatory trends," the government said in a statement. 

Does that mean that after Dec. 20, 2025 no banned products will be shipped through Canada?

Not exactly. New rules will continue to allow for banned plastic products manufactured in another country to be shipped through Canada to a third country without restriction. 

CBC News asked the federal government why this was the case if the goal is to remove plastics from the environment and was told that Canada's participation in the World Trade Organization's Trade Facilitation Article 11.8 prohibits Canada from applying technical regulations to goods in transit. 

I thought plastic straws were being banned, but they aren't?

While most plastic single-use straws are being banned, flexible or bendable straws are not — although they are being restricted.

Retail stores can sell flexible straws in a package of 20 more, but the package cannot be displayed where a customer can see it without the help of a store employee. 

Flexible straws can continue to be sold busines-to-business as well and for a limited time they can also be sold when packaged with a beverage container providing that packaging was done by the company that made the drink, as they are when sold with juice boxes. 

Juice box straws can only be sold until June 20, 2024, before they also fall under a ban. 

The decision not to ban flexible straws was made because they remain useful and required for people with physical disabilities or for people being cared for in a medical or long-term care facility. 

Will Canadian companies still be able to make these items for export?

In order to "enable industry to adapt to the changes" the federal government said it would allow industry to manufacture plastics until Dec. 20, 2025. Exporters need to keep detailed records of who is buying their products to comply with the rules.

Checkout bags are often used more than once by consumers who repurpose them. Why are these banned, but garbage bags that are only used only once are not?

CBC News put this question to the federal government and was told that "reusing an item for an additional single use does not make the item reusable by definition."

According to the federal government's definition: "A reusable item is designed and intended to be used multiple times, for the same use, without losing its original functionality. Using single-use plastic checkout bags for a second time as a garbage bag or lunch bag does not mean that it is reusable."

WATCH | Ottawa to ban many single-use plastics by end of 2023:taw
The federal government is moving to ban many single-use plastics over the next 18 months including plastic bags, takeout containers, and single-use plastic straws. Companies will be banned from making or importing them by the end of this year, and from selling them by the end of 2023.

The federal government said that any benefit gained from consumers repurposing checkout bags is offset by the environmental harm caused by the product itself, noting that "16,971 units were collected from Canadian shorelines in 2021 through the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup."

By contrast, the government said that it is not aware of data showing the same problem with garbage bags. The government said the lack of an alternative to plastic garbage bags is also a factor. 

Will single-use dog waste bags be banned too?

The federal government said that it is not banning single-use pet waste bags because the regulations have been crafted to ban "bags that are designed to carry purchased goods from a business."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kargokings said:

The Liberal government's single-use plastic ban, explained

Earlier this week, the federal government announced the first phase of its plan to reach zero plastic waste by 2030.

This first phase involves a ban on straws, takeout containers, grocery bags, and other plastics.

But a new Fraser Institute study out today finds that this plan will havelittle to no environmental benefit while imposing a large financial cost on Canadians!

Not only is Canada's contribution to global aquatic plastic pollution virtually non-existent, but only 1% of Canada's plastic waste is everreleased into the environment as litter.

And it doesn't stop there – the additional waste generated by the substitutes for plastic will increase costs for municipalities by $300 million a year, which is just one cost of this policy that will ultimately be a burden on Canadians.

Learn more by checking out the full study here, and be sure to spread the word on social media.


Niels Veldhuis
The Fraser Institute

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jaydee said:

And it doesn't stop there – the additional waste generated by the substitutes for plastic will increase costs for municipalities by $300 million a year

I'm now buying the bags I used to recycle from the grocery store and they are easily twice as thick as the newly banned ones.

Given that, it seems logical to assume that my plastic waste footprint has now doubled.

I've asked this since the Paris Accord targets were released, and to no avail... I'll try again.

Are there any supporters willing to articulate what sectors of the economy they want shut down to hit their goals. The two year covid debacle didn't even come close, you have to dig deeper, much deeper. The economic effects in play now are a fraction of that required.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I know you aren't going to reply, let me propose a few minimum measures that would serve as a starting point:

A. Reduce domestic air travel availability to mid covid levels and allow prices to adjust accordingly... should save the pilot shortage too;

B. Limit agricultural production to domestic requirements only... no exports;

c. Raise the carbon tax (to where it clearly needs to be for deterrent purposes)... $300.00 per ton;

D. Require thermostat limits on all households not to exceed 18C in winter and 23C in summer... if it's OK to fire me over a vaccine mandate surely you can put on a sweater to save the planet;

E. Levy a progressive tax on all households exceeding 800 square feet per occupant;

F. Levy a progressive (meaning heavy) tax on all vehicle engine displacements above 2.0 litres; and

G. Increase fines for speeding by a minimum of 300% and rigidly enforce speed limits with photo radar.

Thats a start, a small step in the right direction and NOT NEARLY ENOUGH by any measure. Shutting down the entire domestic agriculture industry isn't enough. Shutting down the entire transportation industry isn't enough.

Tell me your plan... and keep in mind that you need to be much bolder than I was and you need to implement it within 7 1/2 years.

I see it all as a house of cards, faced with a fraction of the reality governments claim to want is proving a challenge for them. If the power grid can't handle air conditioning, how will it fare with mass electric vehicle charging?

Simply enhancing the grid will take 7 1/2 years and more cash than you are willing to pay. 

Now forget all about the foolish suggestions above, fix the power grid, show me you're up to the task... then I'll ask for your plan again. Deal?


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO …. The real elephant in the room is controlling population growth…..stop immigration and avoid increasing the carbon footprint of the country as a whole:


Canada needs an additional 5.8 million homes by the end of the decade to help lower average home costs and ensure households are not spending more than 40 per cent of their disposable income on shelter, according to a new government report. That target blows past the current projection of 2.3 million new homes by 2030, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. report, and would require building of new homes to more than double from current levels.

Of course this is counter to the narrative of current government to increase the tax base and be a good G7 member.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...