fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

CLEMENT: More plastics bans will not impact the environment, but will impact consumers

“Up to 95% of all plastic found in the world’s oceans comes from just 10 source rivers, which are all in the developing world.”

mm

Published

on

Policy makers at all levels have declared effective war on plastics. Municipalities have enacted water bottle bans, provinces have sought to restrict or prohibit the sale of certain items, and the federal government has gone so far as to classify all plastic as “toxic” under the Canadian Environment Protection Act. 

The arguments against these policies have been well documented. Alternatives to single use plastics are almost always worse for the environment based on a life cycle analysis, and there are new innovations available to use that actually deal with the issue of mismanaged plastic waste, rather than using the long arm of the state to ban items.

All of that said, you would think that the environmental activists who pushed for these policies would be content with their policy victory, but they aren’t. As always, they want more, which ultimately means more government involvement in the economy, and in the lives of consumer.

Oceana, for example, was one of the loudest voices calling for all sorts of heavy-handed policies to deal with plastic waste. Unfortunately, Canadians have given these advocates an inch, and now they want to take a mile.

Just this month Oceana launched a new campaign titled “A Plastic Free July” where they are calling on the government to drastically expand on their incoming single use plastic ban to almost everything except medical devices. Their statement reads “As currently proposed, the federal government’s ban on six single-use plastics covers less than one percent of the plastic products we use – a drop in the bucket for an ocean drowning in plastic waste.”

Oceana is right, those products represent a small percentage of the plastic that ends up in our oceans. But their conclusion that we need to “ban more things” won’t magically mean that there is less plastic in the ocean, mostly because Canadians, and single use plastics, are not responsible for the vast majority of mismanaged plastic in our oceans. 

Up to 95% of all plastic found in the world’s oceans comes from just 10 source rivers, which are all in the developing world. Canada on average, contributes less than 0.01 MT (millions of metric tonnes) of mismanaged plastic waste. In contrast, countries like Indonesia and the Philippines contribute 10.1% and 5.9% of the world’s mismanaged plastic, which is upwards of 300 times Canada’s contribution. China, the world’s largest plastics polluter, accounts for 27.7% of the world’s mismanaged plastic. Canada, when compared to European countries like England, Spain, Italy, Portugal and France, actually contributes four times less in mismanaged plastic. The only European countries on par with Canada are the significantly smaller Sweden, Norway and Finland

Beyond the fact that Canadians are not significant contributors to the issue of marine plastic waste, most of the plastic in our oceans, regardless of the source country, isn’t from consumer products at all. Approximately 50% of all plastic in the ocean comes directly from the fishing industry, who often carelessly dump used nets in the ocean, which is a serious problem in need of a solution.

These two inconvenient truths should raise immediate red flags as to the efficacy of plastic bans, and should cause us to outright reject calls for more bans on consumer products. These bans won’t make any serious impact on the issue of plastic waste in our oceans, all while making life more expensive for ordinary Canadians, while pushing them to alternative products with a higher environmental impact. 

Rather than caving to a call for expanded bans, or the silly idea of a “Plastic Free July.” we should instead narrow our sights on empowering innovators to solve these problems. Incredible technologies have been created in Alberta in the past few years to deal with plastic waste, which include taking single-use products and turning them into everything from resin pelletstiles for your home and even road asphalt. Even better, scientists have now figured out a way to take these problematic plastics, flash heat them, and turn them into graphene, which is currently priced at around $100,000/tonne and has tremendous potential in the construction industry.

We realistically have two paths to deal with the plastic waste we produce. We can seek to ban items that people use, which will inflate prices and have no serious impact on marine waste. Or, we can lean on innovators to remove plastic from the environment and extend the lifespan of those plastics indefinitely, while creating jobs and lowering costs. When faced with this fork in the road, the superior path forward is pretty obvious.

David Clement is a columnist for The Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center.

David Clement is a Columnist for the Western Standard. He is also the North American Affairs Manager of the Consumer Choice Center.

Continue Reading
8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. SaskFreedom

    August 5, 2021 at 11:15 pm

    I always request uncooked meat be packaged separately. I always throw those bags out but save other bags for reuse. Long term, this is better on the environment because it’s not promoting antibiotic resistant food pathogens to spread and mutate.
    There’s no test that can be done practically to test the hippie bringing in their cloth bags actually washed out all the salmonella, listeria snd ecoli before bringing them into the store. And judging by how often and how thoroughly they don’t wash their hair, I have little faith they wash their reusable granola bags.

  2. SaskFreedom

    August 5, 2021 at 11:09 pm

    Stop shopping at Sobeys and places that want you eggs to fall through their useless paper bag on the way out to your vehicle.
    Banning plastic was stupid. Plastic serves an important purpose in food safety. Paper is fine but doesn’t even last the trip after you pay to your car in the parking lot, at least plastic is reusable. Paper doesn’t last 30 seconds after you leave the store. What happened to “save the trees”?
    And cloth bags are not hygienic for raw meat etc. To make them hygienic you need to wash them in very hot water after every use. Are we not concerned with water consumption and phosphates in our lakes?
    How many single use masks are in landfills, and how many people using cloth masks didn’t wash them after every use and created antibiotic resistant bacteria? How many antibiotic resistant food bacteria are likely to be produced by people who don’t wash those bags after every single use in scalding hot water and bleach?

  3. Lee Morrison

    July 15, 2021 at 1:47 pm

    Remember when cheaper and superior plastic grocery bags were replacing paper? The environmental slogan of the day was “Go plastic, SAVE A TREE”.

  4. Polly

    July 15, 2021 at 7:46 am

    Great comments here. Having watched these idiots stumble through the comedy ( tragedy) of errors in dealing with covid, they should just fuck off from attacking industry with half baked ideas and virtue signalling, and run parliament through the entire summer like Like grown-up adult workers instead of being on holiday much of the year.

  5. Left Coast

    July 14, 2021 at 3:23 pm

    One thing that is becoming more apparent every day now . . . Canada is DONE !

    Remember when . . . .
    World’s Richest Middle Class . . . NY Times
    World’s Best Reputation . . . Reputation Institute
    Best Wage Growth in G7 Nations . . . 2007-2012
    Best Oilfield Salaries in the World . . .
    Best Oilfield Enviro Regs in the World . . . Harvard Bus School
    Best Country to do Business . . . . Forbes
    World’s Best Debt to GDP Ratio , . . OECD

    ALL of that is in the REAR VIEW Mirror today Canada . . . . as you wallow towards European style Failed Statism.

  6. CodexCoder

    July 14, 2021 at 11:15 am

    As usual, there is no mention of what will replace the existing technologies. Plastic bad, but what is good? I once confronted a Green Peace solicitor at my door with a simple question – what kind of pipe did she have in her house/apartment? She first off didn’t know, second didn’t really care, and third was unaware of all of the risks associated with any of them. What I tried to get her to understand is that there are no perfect solutions but one still needs to choose.

    Our PM, the village idiot, believes that he has the best choice and that we must all abide by his choices. And he couldn’t be more wrong. He doesn’t have any alternatives except being negative. Neither does his party. Ok, so we ban plastics, then what? Complete and utter silence by the ruling elite. Such thought is beneath them in the midst of their political pandering and immorally hypocritical virtue signalling.

  7. Left Coast

    July 14, 2021 at 9:48 am

    Our idiots in Ottawa are concerned about Plastic . . . meanwhile . . .

    Watch: Waste dumped into river by town panchayat workers in Cuddalore district
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeDY3I841q0

    Like Gorebull Warming Scam . . . no rules for the 3rd world, just dopy Canooks.

    U think Plastic is a problem . . . recycling Batteries from Electric Cars is a problem that has not been solved. Does our Crime Minister know this?

  8. Steven

    July 14, 2021 at 8:36 am

    Justin Trudeau is considered “Plastic” & “toxic” to Western Canada.

    However, we call all be sure that Minister Wilkinson & Plastic Trudeau will keep on using Plastic in their daily lives for the foreseeable future. Just like the rest of us.

    Justin Trudeau will give Quebec a pass, but Western Canada will feel the brunt of his Toxic Personality.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Opinion

MORGAN: It’s time for municipal political parties in Alberta

Conservatives had an opportunity to get a slate of small-government representatives into office and we blew it.

mm

Published

on

The union-backed coalition of candidates in Calgary’s civic election decisively won the day. With 27 candidates running for mayor and nearly 100 candidates vying for one of 14 council seats, it was a bewildering mix of candidates for voters to choose from.

Only one candidate out of all of the races won with more than 50% of the vote. In Ward 7, the vote was so diluted, Terry Wong won the seat with only 25% support. Union endorsed candidates took nine out of 15 spots, including the mayoral chair.

The 2021 municipal election offered the largest turnover of elected positions we have seen at city hall in a generation. Conservatives had an opportunity to get a slate of small-government representatives into office and we blew it. Rather than gripe about how the union coalition took city hall, we need to learn from it. If we don’t change how we approach civic elections, left-progressives will keep winning them.

Some people have been scratching their heads over why Calgary votes so conservatively federally and provincially while so progressively when it comes to their municipal elections. The difference is the party system. Conservatives need to form a municipal political party if they want to displace the union-progressive bloc dominating Calgary’s municipal government.

Progressives may be ideologically delusional, but they aren’t stupid. They know they won’t win as many municipal seats if they actually run on a left-wing platform. They run right and govern left. Once they are in office, they can rely on incumbency and an apathetic electorate in order to retain their seats. They don’t need a large number of voters in order to keep their seats, they can simply let conservatives keep splitting the vote in future elections. That tactic kept Druh Farrell in office for 20 years despite her only winning over 50% of the vote once.

A political party will solve many of the issues leading to the chronic defeat of conservative candidates in Calgary and to some extent, Edmonton.

A political party provides for a nomination system. Prospective candidates are vetted by members in a race for the right to run. This helps expose any past scandals or other issues making candidates inappropriate for office before election time. Nomination scrutiny will test conservative credentials. It is tough for progressive candidates to slide through party scrutiny. Some contenders for office may have fantastic resumes, but be terrible campaigners or fundraisers. A nomination is a dry run and the best prospective candidates will usually rise to the top.

The vote-splitting issue will be mitigated by a single party endorsing only one candidate per ward and for the mayor. There will surely be other conservative candidates running in every race — as is their right — but when name recognition is so difficult to attain in civic politics, they won’t be able to garner more profile than a party-endorsed candidate. There were multiple progressive candidates in many of the races in the last election, but none of them outperformed the union endorsed ones with the lone exception Richard Pootmans. Again, we need to learn from them.

A political party can provide the organization and training independent candidates lack. Some conservative candidates may have had excellent credentials but simply couldn’t put a cohesive campaign team together. A candidate may have a fantastic policy set but had never actually written a press release before. Campaigning is a unique set of skills. Parties provide standardized and shared campaign training to their candidates and volunteers. A party provides a support system and it allows the candidates to focus on important elements of their campaign without getting mired in electoral details party volunteers can handle.

A party can provide uniform branding for its candidates and offer a centralized advertising strategy. The union PAC in the last election had nearly two million dollars to spend on advertising for their chosen candidates. We can’t pretend the union spending didn’t make a difference on those races. A party can advertise the brand while all of their endorsed candidates benefit. TV advertising is a huge expense and is of little benefit to individual candidates for councilor. If the advertising is focused on a shared brand through a party though, it can benefit every party candidate. Only through strong and consistent advertising will candidates be able to defeat incumbents relying on name recognition.

Funds can’t be directly given to candidates by a party but there would be great cost savings in being part of a party. Candidates will be able to get together on orders for sign and literature printing which will bring the costs down tremendously due to the scale of the orders. Campaign office space could be potentially shared and many other cost-saving collaborations between candidates can happen as they work together under one banner.

There could be pitfalls with a political party as well of course. A new party would have to ensure it’s not tied in any way to federal or provincial parties. We’ve already seen how toxic branding from other levels of government can impact elections on other levels.

In bringing a slate together under one brand, not only could all candidates rise with the party, they could fall with it. If there are party missteps or candidate scandals, it could drag down every candidate in the party.

Candidates will also have to ensure they will be beholden to their constituents first and the party second. Importantly, candidates elected to council under a party banner should be free to vote however they choose, with no party whip standing over them. It can be a fine line to walk, but it has to be done. Local government is important and electors don’t want to think their representatives won’t have the ability to use discretion on issues not gelling with the party as a whole.

The only thing worse than an official political party in an election is an unofficial political party. Public service unions have created an unofficial party and it won Calgary’s civic election. If we want to change the status-quo, we will have to change the way we have been playing the game. We need a conservative party to contest the next civic election in Calgary and we need to get on organizing it soon. Otherwise, we will continue spinning our wheels while progressive councilors trot into re-election with ease.

Cory Morgan is the Alberta Political Columnist for the Western Standard and Host of the Cory Morgan Show

Continue Reading

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: The unions bought city hall

It’s a clean sweep that puts Calgary on a course for a more interventionist government for at least the next four years and, with Calgary’s tendency to re-elect municipal incumbents in perpetuity, potentially much longer.

mm

Published

on

Jyoti Gondek is Calgary’s new mayor-elect. She largely represents a continuation of Naheed Nenshi’s purple reign that has led the city’s council and government since 2010, although there are hopeful signs that personality-wise she has less of the outgoing mayor’s Jupiter-sized ego and petulance.

Gondek’s victory means not only that Jeromy Farkas will not be the mayor, but he will no longer continue in his role as the unofficial leader of the opposition on council. The size of the conservative bloc on council may end up relatively similar to its pre-election makeup, but it’s influence will be much diminished.

In addition to Farkas, the conservative bloc lost Joe Magliocca, and while Sean Chu won the day, his scandal involving a minor in 1997 continues to deepen. CTV is reporting salacious new details that could make his continued position untenable. Chu denied the allegations in an exclusive interview with the Western Standard, but more evidence will need to be produced one way or another to determine who’s telling the truth. The jury is still very much out on this one.

Adding to the conservative bloc is Terry Wong, who replaced one of the most stridently leftist members of council, Druh Farrell, as well as Dan McLean, who unseated weather vane incumbent Diane Colley-Urquhart.

Centre-right former councillor Andre Chabot also returns to council, as does the swing vote Peter Demong (who was the only incumbent with no union candidate against him).

Taken together, the conservative bloc will likely be made up of four councillors — if Chu can hang on. If they can sway Demong, they can make up five votes, soaking wet, well short of the eight votes needed to win a majority on any given issue.

The union super-PAC (political action committee) Calgary’s Future swept the table. Their candidates took the mayor’s chair, and eight council seats, although their leftist bloc will likely be joined by the non-union endorsed Richard Pootmans. That brings the union-progressive bloc to 10 votes.

Ten union-progressives, four conservatives, and one swing. It’s a clean sweep that puts Calgary on a course for a more interventionist government for at least the next four years and, with Calgary’s tendency to re-elect municipal incumbents in perpetuity, potentially much longer.

Could Farkas have won?

It’s always an error to add up the votes of the “also ran” candidates and add them to the total of the runner up as if a party or candidate has any kind of ownership over them, but let’s just do it for the sake of the hypotheticals.

Since well before the official campaign period kicked off, Jeromy Farkas was the clear conservative standard bearer for the mayor’s chair. He led the conservative bloc on council, sometimes as a vote of one on more controversial issues. He led every poll in the race until the very end, and other centre-right(ish) candidates never came close to catching him. On election night, he polled 30% of the vote to Gondek’s 45%.

Jeff Davidson ran in the mould of a business conservative, promising a more enterprise-friendly environment, but not going to war with the city’s administration. The card-carrying Conservative polled a respectable 13% on election night.

Similarly, Brad Field ran a semi-conservative, business-friendly campaign, pulling down 5% of the vote.

Together, the 18% of the vote earned by these two candidates could theoretically have put Farkas over the top. Of course, that’s bad math. Just as federal Tories have no right to votes of the PPC, or the federal Liberals have no right to the votes of the NDP or Greens, Farkas has no inherent right to the votes of Davidson and Field. The only people with a right to someone’s vote, are voters themselves.

But it is worth asking why there were three credible centre-to-right candidates on the ballot, but only one credible left-progressive. In the absence of a municipal party system, big-money PACs have filled the void, effectively picking candidates with their war chest. On the union-progressive side, Calgary’s Future had an incredible $1.7 million to spend on its slate, effectively clearing the field of nuisance progressive candidates for clear front-runners to emerge for the mayor’s chair, and in most of the wards. Progressives like former federal Liberal cabinet minister Kent Hehr saw the writing on the wall soon after he declared. This effectively consolidated the vote behind a single candidate, allowing them to stand out from the pack, and in 10 of 14 races, win.

The conservative side of the fight was much less clean cut. There was no single, dominating super-PAC able to effectively bankroll a slate of candidates and clear the field. Until very late in the game, big business and the conservative establishment were hesitant to get behind Farkas. He may have been a conservative, but he was not their man. Farkas was a libertarian who hailed from the old Wildrose Party, and a protégé of Preston Manning. He opposed major corporate welfare projects often supported by much of the business community. They tended to prefer more moderate conservatives less likely to throw a hand grenade into the council chamber.

But Farkas had built up enough public profile and locked in a solid base of support before the conservative establishment could anoint their own candidate. As reported in a Western Standard exclusive one year ago, a party insider said Alberta Premier Jason Kenney himself was on the hunt for a more amenable conservative mayoral candidate, who’s name was not Jeromy Farkas.

The usual Tory establishment voices pleading for “unity” and to not “split the vote” were seldom to be heard beseeching Davidson and Field to get behind Farkas.

The outsized role of union money in the campaign is curious, not so much because they tried (and succeeded) in buying a majority on council to sign their contracts, but because it was allowed to happen at all.

The Alberta UCP government introduced stiff new legislation curtailing the ability of unions to collect money from their members for use in political purposes without their direct consent. The legislation would require that unions bosses obtain the sign-off of individual union members to opt-in to using their dues for political activity, rather than just spending it without their consent, as is historically been the case.

Most curiously, Kenney never proclaimed the legislation into law, even though it has long passed all stages of the Legislative Assembly. The union bosses took note, and raised more money than ever for their candidates.

In the place of political parties running our civic elections, Calgarians have woken up to a council bought and paid for by the government unions.

Who’s to blame is a debate that needs to be had in earnest.

Derek Fildebrandt is Publisher of the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Opinion

SLOBODIAN: Manitoba cabinet ministers are maskless belles of the ball as pastor arrested

Is this like one of those cases where the criminal is crying to get caught?

mm

Published

on

In a photo that surfaced on social media, Manitoba’s Health Minister Audrey Gordon looked lovely all dressed up for the ball. 

But something was missing in that photo snapped at Winnipeg Art Gallery’s annual fundraising gala held last weekend.

Pretty dress. Check! Earrings. Check! Big happy smile. Check! 

Hold on…big happy smile? Uh-oh. No mask.

Who was that other unmasked woman standing to her far right at the indoor public event? Why, it was none other than Minister of Families Rochelle Squires. 

And the other one? Minister of Sport, Culture, and Heritage Cathy Cox, also sans mask.

The damning photo outing them for violating a COVID mandate — masks must be worn at indoor public events — dictated by their PC party, was posted to Squires’ Instagram page. 

Is this like one of those cases where the criminal is crying to get caught?

Of course, after catching flak for the mask faux pas, the ministers were filled with remorse for violating one of the harsh mandates inflicted on other Manitobans, some of whom don’t get to go to work, never mind fancy balls.

Apparently, they were at the table, maybe munching on cake, when someone hollered something like “photo time.”

“I got up and joined the group in the photo, neglecting to wear my mask. It’s unfortunate and it was wrong, and it should not have happened and for that, I deeply apologize,” said Gordon. “I do believe as minister of health, I should be held to a higher standard, and I have always upheld that standard.”

Gordon said she’d “gladly” pay a fine should one be issued. 

Chances are zip of a motorcade of police and health officers showing up — like they do for other mandate violators — to hand the ministers hefty tickets.

The law’s too busy hunting down other delinquents. And they’ll be doing that for some time. It’s still too risky to wander around not wearing masks and such, says the province.

In fact, the gala barely wrapped up when Chief Provincial Public Health Officer Dr. Brent Roussin told Manitobans they’ll likely have to endure tough COVID-19 restrictions in place well into spring.

Hours later a Manitoba pastor was arrested for violation of health orders.

Tobias Tissen, minister at the Church of God Restoration in Steinbach, was picked up Monday night on an arrest warrant issued during the summer for defying health orders. 

“Tobias will be kept in custody overnight and is scheduled to appear before a magistrate tomorrow where he will most likely be asked to sign conditions to obtain his release,” it said on a Twitter account in his name.

Tissen and the church have been slapped with several fines for violating in-person gatherings.

If Tissen had just gone to the ball instead of standing in the pulpit trying to save souls, he wouldn’t have landed behind bars.

Meanwhile, the day before the ball Gordon met with health officials in the province’s southern region. They had to figure out a plan for looking after seniors at care homes in case of staff shortages when Monday’s vaccination deadline for frontline workers arrived. 

Whether Gordon wore a mask at the meeting remains unknown. 

Two personal care homes scrambled last week to alert families they might have to come in and care for their loved ones or take them home, as part of a worst-case scenario contingency plan when unvaccinated workers were shut out and suspended without pay.

Family members were told only days before they might be called upon to do laundry, brush teeth, feed, dress, and clean their elderly relatives in care at Salem Home in Winkler, and Taber Home in Morden.

Apparently staffing levels at these homes were fine the first day of the crackdown. Things may change when more unvaccinated workers can’t work shifts. 

However, the province said 30 health care workers were sent home for not being vaccinated and refusing to comply with COVID-19 testing. Expect that number to rise. More than 1,800 health workers have refused the jab based on religious, medical, or freedom of choice concerns.

No one should begrudge ministers Gordon, Squires and Cox for wanting to doll up and head out on the town. People need to have a little fun.

People need their jobs, too.

People need the right to freedom of choice. 

You don’t get to violate provincial orders when others are punished by being thrown in jail or forced to choose between a paycheck and being injected with a vaccine they oppose.

The ministers are really, very sorry for not wearing masks. They apologized. Their remorse is misplaced. Perhaps they should reflect more on the lives the province is callously messing with, instead of what they didn’t wear at the ball.

Slobodian is the Senior Manitoba Columnist for the Western Standard
lslobodian@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Share

Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

564 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**



The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.