|
|
 |
|
Last Updated: Jul 2nd, 2008 - 20:21:03
|
Wednesday, this space was devoted to the call for municipalities like Lethbridge to ban cosmetic pesticide use, a call many communities in Canada have answered.
Such bans ignore the fact that given options and encouragement, many Canadians are choosing to reduce or eliminate their use of weed and bug killers all on their own for whatever reason, whether concern for their health or a larger concern for the environment.
They may wage war on those pesky dandelions with grit, determination and muscle, rather than a spray bottle. They may take on the ant hill with a kettle of boiled water or sugar-laced Borax rather than some smelly toxic powder or liquid.
Beyond the pesticide issue, they show their environmental concern by divvying up their household waste into what can safely be put in a dumpster and what needs special disposal or recycling. They wouldn’t dream of dumping used motor oil in their alley or pouring paint thinner down the drain.
Yet Lethbridge’s well-meaning environmentally conscious residents have been flummoxed in recent weeks by the very municipal department that’s spent years encouraging proper disposal habits and diversion of waste from the landfill.
Quietly, the city let its long-standing contract with DBS Environmental expire at the end of March, which would be no big deal if there was provision of service in place for April 1. Instead, the Lethbridge firm continued to accept toxic waste at its site for the month of April, even in absence of a city contract.
That goodwill couldn’t last forever, and now residents with toxic waste are left, literally, holding the bag (or the can of old paint or the old pool chemicals).
The city promises it won’t be much longer before its new plan is announced. But that’s only a plan, and an actual alternative drop-off site is another story. As city waste and recycling specialist Steve Rozee told The Herald this week, he can’t say when a new facility at the landfill will be able to begin accepting toxic waste “because at this point, we don’t have a contractor and there will be many things to work out.”
Similarly, the new approach to “spring” cleanup (instead of neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood pickups, residents can phone to schedule a pickup of large items) is likely to continue well into summer, based on the volume of past cleanups that would take three months to complete. Details were scheduled to be announced by the city today.
More worrisome than any delay in the spring cleanup is the complete — albeit temporary — abandonment of the safe disposal of toxic waste. Old habits are hard to break and they can slip back into our lives with relative ease.
All the promotion and public education that helped make regular monthly toxic roundups so in demand they warranted expansion to six-day-a-week service suggest there’s enough interest in safe disposal and enough volume of toxic containers and goods that a long delay in establishing a new program will create temptation for consumers to toss their waste exactly where we don’t want it —with regular garbage destined for the landfill.
Doesn’t sound much like a plan.
Surely, while the city pursues the completely reasonable idea of having a permanent handling facility at the landfill, it can establish some interim service for residents.
Lethbridge’s waste diversion efforts have shown considerable growth in recent years. Now is not the time to encourage a toxic backslide.
© Copyright by Lethbridge Herald.com
Top of Page
|
| This website powered by: Tricubemedia |
Copyright© July 05, 2008 All material,programming and design contained herein
is copyrighted by The Lethbridge Herald, an Alberta Newspaper Group inc. All Rights
Reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
