Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
20°/16°
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Partly Cloudy
21°/14°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
22°/12°

20 Comments

news

Queen’s Park Watch: Eco Taxes, or Why Tim Hudak Thinks You’re Stupid

queensparkwatch.jpg
Illustration by Matthew Daley/Torontoist.


PC leader Tim Hudak celebrated American Independence Day on Monday with a press release lambasting Dalton McGuinty for so-called “eco taxes” and promising that if elected the Tories will free Ontarians from their oppressive yoke.
The statement shouldn’t surprise. Hudak has been programmed by PC spinmeisters such that every other sentence must contain the words “taxes” and “McGuinty,” and thus far the strategy is working. However, in this case there’s one problem: it’s a load of crap.


What Hudak and his tax-obsessed minions are talking about are the fees paid by manufacturers towards the recycling and disposal of products such as electronics, batteries, or paint cans which require special treatment so they don’t give you and your descendants cancer for the next five centuries.
These fees go not to the government, but to specially set-up private “stewardship” companies, which in turn contract the collection and disposal of the toxic trash to outside recycling firms. The key stewardship companies are Stewardship Ontario (which handles a variety of household hazardous wastes including paint and oil containers, single-use batteries and propane tanks), Ontario Electronic Stewardship, (which looks after your obsolete XBoxes and iDevices) and Ontario Tire Stewardship (self-explanatory).
It’s a clunky system, and the whole awkward mess is overseen by Waste Disposal Ontario, a non-Crown corporation set up under the Waste Diversion Act. The Act was implemented in 2002 by—wait for it!—the Progressive Conservative government of Hudak mentor and megacity enthusiast Mike Harris. It specifically mandates the scenario described above, i.e. that manufacturers (or “stewards”) pay fees to Industry Funded Organizations (IFO) such as Stewardship Ontario to cover disposal of their products (while the Act principally references the recycling of non-hazardous waste such as beverage containers and paper, expansion into more toxic trash was always intended).
Last year a golden opportunity arose for the Tories to make political hay from a program designed to avoid leaving consumers (or “families,” in the heartstring-tugging language favoured by the PCs) on the hook for the cost of dumping paint cans and cellphones. At the beginning of July 2010, fees were introduced on a wide range of products to which they hadn‘t applied before, including widely used items like fluorescent light bulbs and household cleaners. Manufacturers and retailers balked at absorbing the cost, and in an outstanding public-relations move, many opted to add the fees directly to the price of the goods and make them visible on the receipt given to the buyer. In addition to this ploy to divert public outrage back onto the government, the introduction of the new fees was mismanaged, poorly communicated, and confusing to both retailers and consumers. With a Sun-inflamed public shrieking for Liberal blood, the panicked McGuinty government backed down and ordered the removal of the new fees. Needless to say, the need to recycle hazardous waste was still there, except that now the cost would be borne directly by Ontario taxpayers.
In the meantime, eco fees remained in place for lower-profile toxics such as electronic devices.
To distill it down, what Tim Hudak is branding as an unaffordable eco-tax that’s driving the white-picket-fence set into penury is actually a fee charged to corporations as part of a program set up by his own party. That the program’s implementation has often been haphazard and bewildering is undeniable, but equally undeniable is that the provincial government has no authority to prevent the “stewards” from passing along the fees to the public, and Hudak knows it.
Hudak also knows that ready alternatives to the current system are even more unpalatable. Either we stop asking the corporate world to fund disposal of their poisonous junk and shift that cost onto the poor disrespected taxpayer, or we give up recycling hazardous waste altogether and go back to chucking our old VCRs into ravines. Thus far the Tories haven’t stated a preference, although given their approach towards green energy and other environmental initiatives it’s not out of the question that we could see a Ravine Disposal Act should they form a government in October.
The question of who should pay to detoxify the detritus of our collective consumer folly is a reasonable subject for debate, but the PC “eco tax” lie distortion is egregious even by the undemanding standards of political strategists. It’s to be hoped that this is one load of toxic garbage that voters won’t buy.

Comments

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    The “cancer for five centuries” angle has a lot more potential than the “intellectually dishonest / logically incoherent / hypocritical” angle. The latter amounts to finger-pointing (albeit factually correct finger-pointing) and can be shrugged off in the usual way; but a clean environment is a clean environment.

    “Tim Hudak wants you and your likely birth-defective children to drink water full of the battery acid, lead, paint and rubber from other people's garbage,” would get a visceral response.

  • tomwest

    The sad thing is that many voters will buy it. Politics is about emotion, not logic.

  • SteveDobbs

    Hudak is not the only one who thinks you are stupid Patrick Metzger. Go sell your eco-cult somewhere else.

  • SteveDobbs

    More scare mongering from the eco-propaganda cult. Exactly what tomwest above noted, although I am sure that you both suffer from cognitive dissonance when it is pointed out to you that the appeals to emotion and scare mongering are all coming from the loony left.

  • http://www.iterativearts.com bud latanville

    What a useless and unhelpful comment. Also, your brevity matches Hudak's thinking on this subject.

  • http://twitter.com/TOSkeet TO Skeet

    Somewhere other than the publication that he is paid to write for. A publication that must at least agree somewhat with his perspective, since they ran the story. Maybe you should bring your comments elsewhere, troll. Its the internets. There are plenty of other sites out there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rowan.pat Patrick Rowan

    If being in an “eco-cult” means that you want companies to be responsible for their products from beginning to end then sign me up.
    All of these products that are covered under Waste Diversion Act are toxic and need to be disposed of in a safe manner.  How would you propose that we deal with it?
    I would like to live in a clean environment where drinking the water and breathing the air don't come with advisory warnings.  Call me crazy…

  • Matt Crane

    So Dobbs, which tax payers do you think should pay for the disposal of hazardous materials?   All of us equally or those who are aggravating the problems?

    But I suppose you know in your “gut” that there is no problem and therefore nobody needs to pay anything extra.

  • Matt Crane

    Try posting non-inflammatory (unlike SD's above) comments out of line with the editorial boards ideology on the Sun site and see how quickly you get banned.  

    You might forgive ideolouges like this for believing there is a large consensus for their “gut” feelings.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    SteveDobbs just e-mailed to tell me he's volunteering his lawn for our old TVs and microwaves.

  • Eric S. Smith

    He just e-mailed me to clarify:  he's volunteering someone else's lawn for our old TVs and microwaves.  As long as that someone isn't on his street.  Property values.

  • Eric S. Smith

    All of us equally or those who are aggravating the problems?

    This question is hard for a Common Sense Revolutionary to answer in the general case.  They favour user fees that they believe they can avoid.  When it seems likely that they would be on the wrong end of the “user pays” model, they favour public funding.

  • tomwest

    I was saying that Hudak (right wing) was appealing to emotion. He seems to be saying “1) you pay more for your products because of a Liberal law. 2) taxes are bad 3)  so, this must be bad”. That's a call to emotion

    What he ignores is that the point of the law is to ensure that toxic materials are properly disposed of, and the cost of doing so is paid by the user (either as an explicit charge, or just by higher prices). That's a non-emotional argument. However, emotion always seems to trump reason in politics. 

    (NB: maybe you and/or Hudak thinks the government should just pay for clean-up out of general taxation, rather than through user fees… though that seems oddly left wing!)

  • gr8to

    “To distill it down, what Tim Hudak is branding as an unaffordable eco-tax that's driving the white-picket-fence set into penury is actually a fee charged to corporations as part of a program set up by his own party. That the program's implementation has often been haphazard and bewildering is undeniable, but equally undeniable is that the provincial government has no authority to prevent the “stewards” from passing along the fees to the public, and Hudak knows it.”

    This sentence belies a stunning ignorance of basic economics.  Armchair quarterback policy analysis.

  • Patrick_Metzger

    Feel free to elaborate, as I've got a pretty decent background in economics. I also know what the word “belies” means, which it appears you don't.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=172000894 Ryan Dochuk

    I think everyone can agree that we need to dispose electronics, appliances and other products that contain toxic materials in a safe way and someone has to pay for this.

    In the end, we are only choosing when we pay the disposal cost and who pays the disposal costs.  The cost can be paid up front when the product is purchased, or and the end of the products life.  We can pay disposal costs collectively as a province or collect disposal costs on a consumption-based (pay for the amount of stuff you consume/discard) model.  

    The “eco-tax” model is a market driven solution where costs are directly allocated to those that buy and consume the products.  Alternatively, you have a model where these costs spread evenly across all tax-paying citizens, so those that consume less hazardous products pay the same as those that consume many hazardous products.  I don't think that would make sense to anyone.  

    In my opinion, Dalton McGuinty shouldn't have backed down on the program, it was the equivalent of coming out and saying the program was wrong, which it wasn't, the implementation just got botched.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nortonnorton John Norton

    How many years will it take for us yo recover from this chunk of history defined by the ignorance and short-sighted recklessness of conservatives being in power in all levels of government. the damage done with we return to sensible leadership will be extensive.

  • Toronto_Dave

    A typical Conservative (big-C) troll comment. Don't argue on the substance of the issue at hand; just insult the writer personally and slip in a right-wing or partisan slogan/buzz-word where you can (“loony left”, “eco-cult”, “McSquinty” etc.).

    I can only refer back to an earlier Torontoist series of articles where they found that ad on Craigslist for a company that paid people to “balance out” supposedly left-leaning comment boards.

    The only real question here is this: Could SteveDobbs be one of these paid astroturfers?

  • http://piorkowski.ca qviri

    “We” don't need to dispose of electronics. We can depend on a corporation we pay for garbage disposal to safely and efficiently do it for us.

    (Huge big sarcasm flag to account for Poe's law)

  • Toronto_Dave

    It's Rob Ford/Stephen Harper redux. Run on a simple message that feeds the outrage of just enough voters, facts be damned. There's billions in waste at City Hall. Millions of crimes go unreported and lefty judges give murderers lollipops in lieu of the death sentence. Et cetera.

    Repeat ad nauseum until a plurality of voters believe it.