Friday, July 17, 2009

Waste diversion programs are not cheap…

but we could be paying for them partially through revenue from landfill tipping fees. Within the past two years, the city of Toronto purchased the Green Lane Landfill in St. Thomas, Ontario for $220 million. A worthy investment considering that projected capacity is until 2034 (under current waste consumption patterns). Because the landfill has a decent capacity, and with the augmentation of waste diversion programs like composting, recycling and waste education, the city should institute a landfill tax also known as tipping fees.

Landfill tipping fees are fairly common in the U.K. and certain U.S. states like California. Tipping fees are like a tax levied in units of currency per unit of weight or volume; for example, $/yard or $/kg or $ $/tonne.

Toronto currently has no tipping fee policy but by introducing one at the Green Lane Landfill it can potentially induce more waste reduction efforts, resulting in a total decrease in the flow of waste sent to the landfill. Why landfill tipping fees? The main impetus for this policy would be to control and price external waste which could offset the city’s own waste management costs. For instance, through establishing a tipping fee to external users or municipalities, it could cover the landfill operating costs such as land taxes and property fees, environmental monitoring costs like repairing liners to prevent groundwater contamination, and service costs to offset payments for employees who work at the landfill.

Operating a landfill is costly especially one that collects waste from the city of Toronto. The city should not merely invite hundreds of municipalities across the region to use the landfill however, those currently using the landfill should be subjected to tipping fees based on how much waste they bring.

On the waste conservation side, having a tipping fee in place could provide a stronger incentive for external municipalities to reduce waste and reduce costs. In other words, let's say that Toronto’s tipping fee is set at a price such as $35/tonne of waste. This fee can act as an incentive for users to send less waste to avoid such a financial burden. Of course, this would mean that municipalities can simply use other landfills in the region that do not have such tipping fees. However, as waste management becomes even more of a salient issue, we may witness a good provincial policy decision to bring about legislation that require all landfills in Ontario have a tipping fee in place.

Toronto can benefit tremendously by charging these external users a designated tipping fee which can help offset some of its annual waste management costs. If municipalities continue to send their waste to the landfill because it is simply more convenient and efficient to do so, then Toronto can consider raising its tipping fee which can provide additional revenue to fund increased waste diversion activities.

Toronto’s waste diversion rate is hovering around the 60% mark and this can increase with more funding (which we know is limited right now). For instance, increased revenues can be directed towards Toronto’s Greenbin composting program, blue box recycling program or even for consumer education, teaching consumers about the merits of conservation and waste reduction effort.

The city has a goal of 70 percent solid waste diversion from landfill by 2010. Achieving such a rate would extend the life of the Green Lane landfill until 2034. However, waste diversion programs would require more funding in the range of $50 million annually to achieve this goal. While landfill tipping fees are not the be all end all solution to this, they can surely help raise some revenue to achieve the city's goal of 70 percent solid waste diversion from landfill by 2010.

Key message: Landfill tipping fees can provide Toronto with more economic flexibility when it manages waste diversion and provides waste consumer education. It can also discourage municipalities to send their waste to the landfill because of the exorbitant tipping fee in place.

No comments:

Post a Comment