My Clean Break column today in the Toronto Star talks about why the city, which under previous Mayor David Miller practically banned discussion of energy-from-waste, should open its mind and have an honest dialogue about options for turning the city’s hard-to-recycle solid waste into useful products, such as electricity, ethanol or green chemicals.

They’re doing it in Edmonton with Enerkem, which is turning sorted municipal solid waste into ethanol. They’re doing it in Ottawa with Plasco Energy, which is turning residual municipal waste into syngas that’s used for generating electricity. Trash giant Waste Management, an investor in Enerkem, has been investing heavily in technologies that can cleanly convert waste into useful chemicals and fuels in a safe way that releases virtually no emissions into the atmosphere — at least not, obviously, until any end fuel product is burned. But this fuel product would be displacing a fossil fuel using materials that might otherwise degrade in a landfill and release methane or contaminate groundwater.

This is an area where I part with many of my friends in the environmental community, and believe me, I’ve had my share of debates over a beer. But the landfill option is not better, in my view, and while I fully support waste diversion programs I don’t believe we can ever get to 100 per cent diversion. There’s a lot of wood waste, clothing, unrecyclable plastics, and even certain paper and plastic products can only be recycled so many times. What happens with this garbage? Advanced energy-from-waste technologies, like those being built by Enerkem and Plasco, can help municipalities manage their waste in their own back yard and get a source of energy in return.

I’m not saying we should drink the Kool-Aid, no questions asked. But at the same time, I’m a believer that the technology has changed over the years, the economics have improved, and some systems being piloted and built for commercial use today are dramatically different than the dirty incinerators built in the 1970s. Skepticism is fine, and encouraged, but not when it’s accompanied by outright dismissal or repeated attempts to compare today’s technology with what stirred up controversy 20 years ago.

It’s a conversation Toronto needs to have.

The debate, hosted by Toronto Greenhouse and moderated by yours truly, took place this evening. Please come back after noon on Wednesday for access to a transcript of the event and to post any followup questions you may have. Candidates have been invited to visit this site and answer questions. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: After a sincere attempt to transcribe last evening’s Green Government debate, I have decided to not proceed because certain parts of the debate were inaudible on my digital recorder. It would be unfair to post a transcript in which the comments of certain candidates are not accurately recorded. My apologies. I will, however, soon have access to a link where people can watch the full video of the debate.

In the meantime, I will post here the four questions I asked and candidates have the opportunity, if they choose, to respond more clearly and concisely on this blog. Their responses can be sent to tyler@cleanbreak.ca and will be posted soon after they are received. (NOTE: Sarah Thomson has replied. Read below for her comments.)

Question #1: What are the top three environmental issues facing the city today and how do you plan to address them?

Question #2: Building on past efforts, how can a major municipality like Toronto do a better job of reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions?

Question #3: Can the green economy be a future economic engine for Toronto? If so, in which areas should Toronto focus its efforts and how would you, as mayor, support emerging green businesses?

Question #4: Where does each candidate stand on the use of energy-from-waste technologies, both as a way to manage municipal waste and generate electricity for the city?

Here are some links to coverage of last evening’s event — the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and the National Post (and here).

Also, check out Toronto Star columnist Catherine Porter’s account of the evening on Twitter.

If you attended the debate, I welcome your comments. Who won? Which particular responses stood out?

To read candidate answers received so far click for more… (more…)

The G20 is set to get started in Toronto this weekend and it’s going to be a zoo. Canadians will end up spending $1 billion on security alone, and that’s just for a few days. The city’s downtown core will be in lockdown. Trees in the area have been removed for fear that protesters will use branches as weapons. Streets and businesses will be closed. Traffic around the city will be chaos. This, all so a bunch of leaders can get a bit of face time and likely accomplish very little.

Fun, eh?

So, after visiting Toronto, what will world leaders and foreign press walk away with? Probably the image they’ve always held of Canada — a large country with natural resources galore. Lumber, oil, natural gas, minerals, metals, fresh water. Will they walk away with the impression that Canada is an innovative nation that’s leading the world in creating a green economy? In a word, no. In fact, one of the key drivers of green economics — climate change — wasn’t even going to be part of the G20 agenda until leaders from the United Nations, the European Union and Mexico issued public protests. Canada’s current federal government is more than happy with the status quo.

Canada’s dependence on its natural resources will only continue to stifle innovation in this country, according to venture capitalist Andrew Heintzman in his new book The New Entrepreneurs (check out my Clean Break column for more info on this). But it’s not like this innovation doesn’t exist. In fact, many of them are designed to improve the productivity and efficiency of Canada’s natural resource-based sectors. Heintzman’s book goes into great detail profiling dozens of the entrepreneurs and clean technology companies that are the seeds of a green economy in Canada, and while some of these risk takers are world leaders in what they do, they’re based in a country that’s failing so far to see the opportunity they represent.

The issue is close to Heintzman’s heart. He is co-founder and CEO of Investeco Capital, a Toronto based venture capital firm that funds emerging clean technology companies. He’s also chair of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s climate change advisory panel. “Canada has virtually no national strategy on renewable energy; no plans for high-speed rail lines in development; no national smart-grid plans of any consequences; no greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals of any meaning; and no energy efficiency goals,” he writes. “In short, Canada is lacking a coherent national strategy on the most important economic questions of our time – questions that will define our future competiveness, productivity and prosperity.”

Questions that are unlikely to be raised this weekend.

The City of Toronto has launched two funds that will make it easier for schools, churches, hospitals and other not-for-profit sectors to reduce their carbon footprint.

The $42 million Toronto Energy Conservation Fund and the $20 million Toronto Green Energy Fund, created as part of the city’s climate action plan, make available zero-interest loans for projects that aim to make buildings more energy efficient or bigger users of green energy. Up to $1 million will be available for individual projects, on the condition that the funding represents no more than 49 per cent of total project costs. Both new and retrofit building projects, including those involving municipal buildings, are eligible.

It’s a great idea, particularly during the current credit crunch, and we need to see more of the same. In fact, the city might want to check out what’s going on in Berkeley, Calif., where residents can install solar panels and pay for them over 20 years through a line item on their property tax bill. A company called Renewable Funding is administering the program, which could apply to a range of renewable energy and efficiency measures.

The City of Toronto has awarded contracts to equip 20 municipal facilities with solar thermal equipment that will provide heat to buildings. But instead of owning the systems, the city is only purchasing the heat energy to offset the use of fossil fuels. Fifteen of the sites will have systems built, owned and operated by Mondial Energy Inc., while the remaining five go to CC Solar Inc. – both companies from Toronto. These “solar utilities” have struck 20-year heat purchase agreements with the city, replicating a model that has worked for companies like SunEdison for the deployment of solar PV systems. It’s believed to be the largest solar *thermal* utility contract signed with a major North American municipality.

This just in: Mondial has also announced it is one of two solar utilities chosen by the State of Wisconsin to supply solar heat energy to government buildings, including sites at the University of Wisconsin and state correctional institutions. It’s being touted as the first initiative of its kind at a state level.