Letters to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on Need, Cost, and long term fiscal management

To send a short pre-written letter re: Recycling a Better Option - Please click here!

To send a longer personalized letter, follow the instructions below:

Step 1.  CLICK HERE to open your email composer. It will already contain the full list of recipients and a subject line but you can add, remove or change any of these.

Step 2.  Below are a series of text elements which you can copy and paste to create your custom letter. When created this way there is no limit on how long the letters can be. If you like you can can combine all the pieces below into a single letter but you would probably want to do some editing.

Step 3.  Add your full name and address at the end.

Step 4.  Click SEND

Aggressive recycling and diversion is a much more appropriate "alternative to", but this was dismissed in a couple of cursory pages near the beginning of the EA.

Durham Region currently has one of the highest diversion rates in the province and has a consultant report in hand which maps out how to achieve 70% diversion by 2013. This has not been acted upon because the incinerator needs that garbage. Recycling is a much more efficient use of resources with essential no emissions.

This incinerator will preclude any further action to reduce waste and this is in direct conflict with the ministry's move towards waste reduction through EPR.

While manufacturers are removing their end-of-life products from the waste stream, Durham will be trying to burn them because it needs that waste to meet the minimum 100,000 tonnes it must provide to keep the incinerator operating.

When addressing the purpose and rationale for the undertaking, the proponents failed to show there is a demonstrable need for this undertaking, or that the incineration proposal is in any way environmentally superior to alternatives.  This is a critical deficiency in the EA that should have been flagged in the Ministry Review.

Recycling was deliberately omitted in consideration of ‘Alternative to’.

Recycling must be the way of the future, and the technology for it is available today. It would be foolish to choose garbage incineration which is an expensive stopgap solution that will inevitably be replaced by recycling.   Please prevent the construction of this facility so that we can protect our environment and enjoy the benefits of the many long lasting jobs that will be created by a recycling plant.

This incinerator will stall increased recycling for 25 years. In 2008 Durham region commissioned Golder Assoc to investigate ways to increase recycling. It returned with a short term plan which mapped out in detail how to achieve 71.3% diversion by 2013. This report has been gathering dust ever since because at 70% diversion there is not enough residual garbage to keep the incinerator operating.

Golder also provided costing which was a tiny fraction of the cost of the incinerator (which will still leaves 30% ash which needs to be landfilled).

Province is on the right course with ‘Waste to Worth’ – incineration is a step backward.

Durham Region is already a leader in recycling and agressive diversion is a far more appropriate course than incineration.

With increased waste diversion and greater participation in composting and recycling, the typical curb side garbage has changed vastly over the last 5-10 years. My household garbage is mainly plastic bags and packaging, which the Region does not currently recycle even though the technology is readily available.

This incinerator is currently budgetted at $280 million and is the largest single contract ever let by the Region of Durham. Yet Durham Council has voted NOT to examine the contract - staff will sign it without further oversight.  Covanta operates some 40 incinerators in the US, Canada and internationally. They are experienced negotiators and know what they want - Durham staff are at their mercy.

The 16 councillors who voted to move forward with incineration, continue to duck their responsibility and, by providing no oversight. Though many questions have been raised, they appear to be using the vote of June 24 last year as a convenient dodge.