Only answer 1 question: Discuss the positive and negative factors revolving around the green bin program implementation.
Microsoft Word - 9b11D008.doc S w 9B11D008 LONDON’S GREEN BIN PROGRAM1 David House wrote this case under the supervision of Elizabeth M. A. Grasby solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality. Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmission without its written permission. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7; phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882; e-mail
[email protected]. Copyright © 2011, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2011-05-30 In January 2010, the general manager of environmental and engineering services (City Engineer) for the City of London needed to make a recommendation regarding the implementation of a “green bin” program to city council. If implemented, the city would collect organic waste from residents that could be sent to facilities for composting. This initiative was one piece of the city’s plan to meet mandated provincial targets for diverting waste from landfill sites. Before making the recommendation, the City Engineer needed to consider the program’s benefit to the environment, as well as several qualitative issues related to the program and the cost to the city’s taxpayers. WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO2 The management of wastes posed a significant challenge worldwide. In 2004, more than 12 million tonnes3 of solid waste4 were generated in Ontario, most of which were disposed of in landfill sites inside and outside the province. Historically, landfills were considered to be an inexpensive way for society to dispose of all wastes. The costs, however, did not consider longer-term environmental problems. Landfills contributed 3.5 per cent of Ontario’s total greenhouse gas omissions5 as well as other airborne toxins into the atmosphere. In addition, if the sites were not properly engineered, they posed a significant risk of releasing toxic materials into the ground and into water tables (termed “leachates”). Historically, much of the material sent to Ontario landfills decomposed only over very long periods of time. Combined with a growing population, this slow rate of decomposition created increasing challenges for municipalities because old landfills had reached capacity, and the municipalities needed to find new 1 This case has been written on the basis of published sources only. Consequently, the interpretation and perspectives presented in this case are not necessarily those of the City of London or any of its employees. 2 Source – “Ontario’s 60% Waste Diversion Goal – A Discussion Paper,” Ministry of the Environment, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, June 2004. 3 A tonne is 1,000 kilograms. 4 This waste included such things as product packaging, food scraps, furniture, electronics and other items generally considered as “garbage” by homeowners. 5 Typical greenhouse gases produced are carbon dioxide and methane. Greenhouse gases are believed to cause global warming, and many countries were actively working to reduce emissions of these gases. Page 2 9B11D008 locations. These difficulties were often exacerbated when residents near proposed sites protested against planned new landfills. As a result, many cities found themselves with nowhere within their boundaries to dispose of their garbage. For example, the City of Toronto (Greater Toronto Area population near 5.6 million) was forced to export its waste by trucking it to landfills in Michigan, USA.6 In an effort to reduce the province’s dependence on landfill sites, the government of Ontario focused on “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” (3R) programs to divert waste from landfills. One example was the “blue box” program used to separate recyclable materials such as paper, glass and plastics from garbage. These programs had resulted in some success and, by 2004, approximately 27 per cent of waste had been diverted from landfills. The Ministry of the Environment put forth a challenge to all municipalities in the province to improve on this achievement and to increase the amount of waste diverted away from landfills to 60 per cent within 10 years. THE CITY OF LONDON London, Ontario, located approximately 200 kilometres west of Toronto, had a population of 352,000. The city was home to employers such as 3M Canada, The University of Western Ontario, London Health Sciences Centre, and General Dynamics Land Systems. London’s 155,000 households disposed of 93,000 tonnes of garbage into the city’s landfill site annually and diverted another 62,000 tonnes of material through the blue box and other 3R programs. London had introduced a number of initiatives over the years that improved diversion rates of waste from landfill sites from four per cent in 1989 to 40 per cent in 2006. These initiatives ranged from the implementation of curb-side blue box pickup in 1990 to a four-container limit for garbage in 2006. (See Exhibit 1 for a complete list of London’s 3R initiatives.) To meet the provincial goal of a 60 per cent waste diversion rate, the city was considering several options. ALTERNATIVES Optimize Existing Programs Audits of residential waste indicated that approximately 15 per cent of single-family households’ garbage and 25 per cent of waste from multi-residential buildings was composed of material that should have been recycled using the blue box program. The city’s plan to increase the effectiveness of existing programs would focus on improved education, expanding public space recycling,7 increasing blue-box capacity in multi-residential buildings and improving the convenience of special waste depots. Expand Existing Programs This plan would add materials currently not accepted to the blue box program, such as juice/drink-box containers, aerosol spray cans, steel paint cans and plastic bags. This expansion would require modification of current processing methods. 6 In 2007, Toronto shipped 74 truckloads of waste each day to Michigan landfills. 7 Public space recycling ensures that adequate receptacles for recyclable materials exist in parks and other public areas alongside garbage containers. Page 3 9B11D008 Behaviour Change Initiatives Options under consideration to induce a change in behaviour of city residents included: Reducing the number of garbage containers for single-family households from four containers to three containers. Mandatory recycling bylaws that would not only allow garbage collectors to refuse to pick up waste containing recyclable materials, but also allow the city to fine offending homeowners. Reducing garbage collection frequency to motivate homeowners to participate more earnestly in recycling. Instituting full user-pay systems requiring homeowners to pay for each bag of garbage to be picked up. Organic Waste Diversion Waste audit data showed that about 40 per cent of London’s garbage was composed of organic8 waste. To help achieve the province’s goal of a 60 per cent landfill diversion rate, it would be necessary to begin separating organic waste from other waste headed for landfills. This required that the city initiate a “green bin” program. THE GREEN BIN PROGRAM History This type of program had already been instituted in several municipalities across Ontario, including Toronto, Hamilton and the Niagara Region. The program required residents to separate organic materials such as food scraps and food-soiled tissues into a small container (provided by the program) that could be kept in the kitchen. If the homeowner wished, the container could be lined with a certified compostable bag. When the container was full, the homeowner could empty it into a larger container (80-litre capacity) kept in the homeowner’s garage or at the side of the house (see Exhibit 2). If there was still room, the homeowner could top up the container with organic yard waste such as leaves and grass. The larger bin was on wheels, so it could be moved more easily to the roadside for pickup, and it also had a latch to keep out animals. The city emptied the material collected in the large container at curb side on a specified schedule. This material was then taken to a composting facility that processed the organic material into fertilizers for agricultural use. Benefits There would be a number of benefits associated with implementing this type of program in London: An expected reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 65,000 tonnes each year. This amount was equivalent to removing 20,000 cars from the road. Extending the life of the city’s current landfill, expected to fill within 14 years, by two to three years and delaying the capital costs of purchasing land for a new landfill site that would likely do away with the agricultural use of that land. 8 Organic waste typically originates from plant or