Subject: ATTN: Clerk's Office Bylaw From: "Judy MacLeod" Sent: 2020-01-15 3:19:19 PM To: "Clerks Office" ;

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

ATTN: Clerk's Office

I beg you to reconsider a part of your bylaw.

The part where the customer is charged for the bag.

What ever happened to customer service? A company wants me to shop at their store, they went out of their way to attract my business.

Charging me for a bag is NOT good business.

What it does is download or offload or whatever you want to call it, all responsibility to the customer/consumer.

WHY?

Put the onus on the companies and/or corporations to reduce their packaging. Charge them for excessive packaging.

STOP taking it out on the customer, we're not given any choice.

Please try and adopt this outlook for the benefit of your taxpayers instead of dumping yet more charges and fees on them.

Respectfully yours,

Judy MacLeod

Subject: Plastic Bag Bylaw From: "John Vanderwerf" Sent: 2020-01-31 11:02:33 AM To: "Clerks Office" ;

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

I hope I am not to late to have my say on this subject. I do not want the town to pass a bylaw saying we cannot have plastic . I am happy to be charged for them. I use them around the house all the time, although not for garbage of course. When I remember, I take my reusable bags to the store with me, but I don’t always have my car and being of a certain age, I sometimes forget to take them. Charge me please, but don’t take away options. Thank you,

Terri Vanderwerf . Mono, Ont

INTRODUCING THE NEW AND IMPROVED REUSABLE BAG

100% RECYCLABLE – 40% RECYCLED CONTENT – 125 REUSES

MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY – MEANS ZERO

Mayor Laura Ryan & Council 347209 Mono Centre Road Mono, ON L9W 6S3

Dear Mayor Ryan and Council Members:

Prior to this submission we sent you two plastic bags via Canada Post– a reusable bag made from plastic and typical of most of the reusable bags on the market. We have also enclosed and a new and improved reusable bag very much like the bag being used in the State of California.

We sent you these bags to make a point – governments at all levels must stop banning recyclable packaging in favour of non-recyclable packaging. As you know, the thin plastic bag you want to ban is recyclable and is highly reused.

PROBLEM: REUSABLE BAGS CANNOT BE RECYCLED.

Most people do not realize that the reusable bags on the market, even though 90% of them are made from plastic cannot be recycled.

As a result, once they wear out, they will be thrown out as garbage and end up clogging our ; wasting valuable resources.

This makes achieving zero waste impossible.

SOLUTION: INTRODUCE A 100% RECYCLABLE REUSABLE BAG LIKE CALIFORNIA.

Encourage and promote the adoption of a new polyethylene reusable bag that is 100% recyclable and contains recycled content.

It is being adopted as we speak in jurisdictions across North America; in particular California has mandated this bag.

Benefits – its introduction has environmental, economic and social benefits.

Environmental - Can be reused 125 times - Is 100% recyclable - Can be recycled locally using existing infrastructure - Helps reduce GHG emissions and carbon emissions as current reusables like the current reusable bags are more resource and carbon intensive - Makes zero plastic waste and circular economy possible

Economic - Since the bags are made in Canada and not China, creates thousands of Canadian jobs - 40% recycled content creates built-in markets for local recycled resin - Extends life of the local - Eliminates the waste of valuable used plastic which should never end up in landfill

Social - Again, creates and supports Canadian jobs spreading economic prosperity - Affordable

I will be attending Mono Council meeting on February 11. We look forward to hearing how Council will proceed with improved environmental, economic and social sustianability solutions on bag management with these new facts and that also involves working in collaboration with industry, the Province and residents.

Yours truly,

Joe Hruska Vice President Sustainability Canadian Industry Association (CPIA) 416-930-1796 905-678-7748

August 2, 2018

Mr. Mark Early CAO/Clerk Town of Mono

Dear Mr. Early:

RE: July 24 th Council Referral of the Bag Issue for Study after Deputation Climate Change Action (CCAD) Deputation

The Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) has a long tradition working with municipalities to build solutions on plastic packaging and ensure that all decisions made on plastic shopping bags in the name of the environment are made based on science and fact. The purpose of this letter is to continue that tradition and be helpful in any way we can.

At the last council meeting on July 24 th following a deputation by CCAD, staff was directed to investigate the feasibility of implementing a bylaw to ban plastic bags, and to undertake a social media campaign to educate residents on the impact plastic bags have on the environment.

The scientific evidence does not support the CCAD recommendation to make a wholesale shift to reusable bags because reusable bags do not perform as well environmentally as the conventional thin plastic . It should also be noted that they are NOT recyclable in North America.

The following, we believe, will be helpful in your investigation.

THE FACTS – THIRD PARTY INDEPENDENT STUDIES AND SCIENCE

1. Plastic Shopping Bags are NOT Single-Use

This is a highly complex issue. Our biggest concern is that CCAD, like many others, persist in calling plastic shopping bags – “single-us” plastic shopping bags when in fact they are not. Plastic shopping bags are multi-use, multi-purpose bags that are reused for a wide variety of purposes; the most common is to manage household waste.

There is ample independent, third-party research that affirms this point. The Quebec Government Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) released this past January stated that77% of all plastic shopping bags are reused in Quebec; data from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has plastic bag reuse by Ontario residents at 60% in line with a 60% reuse rate in B.C. 5955 Airport Road, Suite 125, Mississauga, ON L4V 1R9

t. 905.678.7748 • f. 905.678.0774 • www.plastics.ca

Evidence Quebec Government Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) - page 3 – 77% reuse https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ENGLISH_FINAL-Quebec-LCA- Highlights.pdf; “The conventional plastic bag has several environmental and economic advantages. Thin and light, its production requires little material and energy. It also avoids the production and purchase of garbage/bin liner bags since it benefits from a high reuse rate when reused for this purpose (77.7%).”

U.K. Government Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) – page 30 – 76% reuse https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat a/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf “Overall it was estimated that 76 per cent of single use carrier bags were reused. The study also asked respondents how they reused carrier bags and found that 53 per cent of respondents said that they used carrier bags as a replacement for kitchen bin liners,”

Ontario Government Bag Reduction Program – page 2 – 59.1% reuse https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ONTARIO-BAG-REDUCTION- Progress-Report-November-26-2010_FINAL.pdf

2. Complex Issue – “Bag Bans are very Disruptive” according to the CCAD

We believe that there are better solutions to reduce the number of plastic shopping bags distributed to limit their use to only “essential” bags; that is bags that are absolutely necessary.

Study after study shows that bag bans don’t work and have negative unintended consequences.

Evidence Even the CCAD presentation understands that there are serious problems with bag bans. They acknowledge on slide 9 that bag bans can deliver big bag reductions “but are disruptive and can risk other unintended consequences.” The CCAD unfortunately does not spell out the unintended consequences. So what are they?

1. You end up with a lot more plastic going to landfill. Plastic shopping bags represent less than 1% of landfill, but with a ban in place, consumers start to buy thicker plastic kitchen catchers to manage their household waste. These bags contain as much as 80% more plastic than the thinner 17 micron bags. So a ban on plastic shopping bags does not reduce the amount of waste in the waste stream. Mono will end up with MORE not less plastic in the waste stream and going to landfill.

5955 Airport Road, Suite 125, Mississauga, ON L4V 1R9

t. 905.678.7748 • f. 905.678.0774 • www.plastics.ca City of Toronto Audit – Page 17 of 61 – Plastic bags 0.8% of the waste stream http://thecif.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/873-Toronto_Final_Report.pdf

2. 100% of the Reusable Bags will end up in the landfill because they are NOT RECYCLABLE . Reusable bags are not recyclable in Canada and so at the end of their life, residents will have no choice but to throw them out as garbage where they will be sent to landfill; as Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Since the average Non-woven polypropylene reusable bag weighs 92 grams (60 for the bag and 32 for the insert) and the conventional bag only weighs 8 grams, which means there will be a lot more plastic going to landfill following a ban on plastic shopping bags.

Evidence Clemson University Life Cycle Assessment of Grocery Bags in Common Use in the United States – Page 25 https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=cudp_envir onment

Clemson University Life Cycle Assessment of Grocery Bags in Common Use in the United States – Page 4 https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=cudp_envir onment

U.K. Government LCA – Page 83 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf

3. Plastic Bags are Not a Problem

Litter audit after litter audit across Canada and North America shows that plastic shopping bags are not a litter problem. The compilation of a number of studies conducted by Canadian audit specialists, MGM Management out of BC, show that plastic shopping bags represent only 0.4% of all litter; that is 4 –tenths of 1%. A ban on these bags is going to have 0 impact on terrestrial or marine litter.

Evidence Environmental Resources Planning Report https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/LITTER-STATS-NA.pdf .

MGM Compilation Report of 4,400 Litter Audit Site Locations in North America https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/MGM-Management-Litter-Audit- Summary-1.pdf

4. List of Studies that will be Helpful in Your Investigation

We are providing you with the links to a number of independent, third-party studies and websites that might be helpful. This is the most current information and it has the benefit of being Canadian.

Government Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and One University Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 5955 Airport Road, Suite 125, Mississauga, ON L4V 1R9

t. 905.678.7748 • f. 905.678.0774 • www.plastics.ca

The most important and most recent is the scientific research called Life cycle analyses (LCA’s) conducted by the Government of Quebec; the Danish Government Ministry of Environment and Food; and the U.K.’s Environment Agency.

They show definitely that bag bans have serious negative consequences and are not the answer to good product stewardship. These LCA studies clearly show that the alternatives to plastic shopping bags – reusable bags -- are worse for the environment and that there are better, more effective bag management strategies to manage plastic shopping bags. Below the signature line of this letter we have provided some of the highlights of these government LCAs).

Quebec Government LCA https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ENGLISH_FINAL-Quebec-LCA- Highlights.pdf;

Denmark Government LCA https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf

U.K. Government LCA https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat a/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf

U.S. Clemson University LCA https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=cudp_environment The Clemson Study above is interesting because it deals directly with reusable bag usage patterns.

SEE BELOW SIGNATURE LINE FOR SUMMARIES OF LCAS IN BRIEF

5. Other Studies – Bag Fees Work

Ontario 50% Reduction Program saw the number of bags distributed reduced by over 50%.

ONTARIO PLASTIC BAG REDUCTION TASK GROUP REPORT https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ONTARIO-BAG-REDUCTION- Progress-Report-November-26-2010_FINAL.pdf

Lessons from Toronto’s Ill-Fated Plastic Bag Tax https://medium.com/@EcofiscalCanada/lessons-from-toronto-s-ill-fated-plastic-bag-tax- 3b411e6dfaf6

Globe & Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/torontos-plastic-bag-debate-is-dead- committee-says/article12669397/

Quebec Bag Fee Program Success https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/plastic-bag-use-cut-more-half-2-years- ahead-schedule-quebec.html

Toronto Plastic Bag Ban Reversal Research

5955 Airport Road, Suite 125, Mississauga, ON L4V 1R9

t. 905.678.7748 • f. 905.678.0774 • www.plastics.ca https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Toronto-Plastic-Bag-Poll-2.pdf- 2012-CITY-WIDE-RESULTS.pdf

Montreal Consumer Research CROP SURVEY OF CONSUMER USAGE PATTERNS – One Pager https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Crop_ACIP_page- infographie_e3_EN-030916.pdf

Full study – CROP https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CROP-POLL-ENGLISH-VERSION- SLIDES.pdf

We look forward to assisting in any way we can. Please call if you need any help at all.

Sincerely,

Joe Hruska Vice President Sustainability Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) 416-930-1796 905-678-7748

IN BRIEF: Scientific Data Proves the Conventional Plastic Bag is the Best Bag Environmentally These governments conducted Life Cycle Analyses (LCAs) conducted comparing plastic shopping bags to substitutes. The groundbreaking U.K. study was released in 2011; t he Quebec Government LCA was just released in January 2018 and the Danish Government LCA in February 2018.

All LCAs show that the thin 17 micron is the best bag on the market environmentally. The conventional plastic bag has the lowest carbon footprint; has the lowest environmental impacts of any other bag on the market.

Quebec Government LCA Recyc Quebec In Brief – January 2018 Environmental and Economic Highlights of the Results of the Life Cycle Assessment of Shopping Bags English Highlights Report : https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/ENGLISH_FINAL-Quebec-LCA-Highlights.pdf English Full Report : https://monsacintelligent.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/ENGLISH_FINAL-Quebec-LCA-Full-Report.pdf

The Quebec Government’s Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) compared the environmental impact of all shopping bags available in Quebec in order to determine which bag has the lowest carbon footprint using North American data. The LCA was conducted by the International Reference Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services (CIRAIG), affiliated with Polytechnique Montréal.

5955 Airport Road, Suite 125, Mississauga, ON L4V 1R9

t. 905.678.7748 • f. 905.678.0774 • www.plastics.ca The LCA showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the thin 17-micron plastic shopping bag is the best bag environmentally and economically. It found that reusable bags have a much greater carbon footprint and require multiple reuses to match the environmental impact of the 17- micron thin bag used just once. According to the Quebec Government LCA, t he Polypropylene (PP) woven and PP non-woven bags need an equivalent number of reuses to equal the thin plastic bag ranging from 16 to 98 and 11 to 59, respectively, depending on the scenario and environmental indicator.

The report concludes that "no alternative to banning plastic bags offers an environmental benefit. ...] In this context, banning [thin HDPE bags] would not be advantageous."

Denmark Government LCA Ministry of Environment and Food In Brief – February 2018 Life Cycle Assessment of grocery carrier bags https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf

The Government of Denmark LCA of grocery carrier bags found that thin plastic shopping bags have the lowest environmental impact of all bags in their marketplace and that reusable bags have to be reused multiple times to provide the same environmental performance of the average conventional LDPE carry bag reused as a waste before incineration.

Minimum number of reusable bag reuses to equal the thin plastic shopping bag: Non-woven PP – 52 times, Woven PP – 45 times, Recycled PET – 84 times, Polyester PET – 35 times, Unbleached paper – 43 times, Organic Cotton – 2,000 times.

U.K. Government LCA Environment Agency in Brief Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the ... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat a/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf

The study found that the conventional plastic shopping bag (HDPE) outperformed all alternatives, even reusables, on environmental performance. Conventional plastic bags have a much lower global warming potential. Heavier, sturdier reusable bags of all materials have a higher global warming potential. For example, the production of cotton with its heavy pesticide and water use has a negative impact on the environmental benefit of cotton bags.

A cotton reusable bag has to be reused 131 times to be as good environmentally as a plastic shopping bag used just once. Non-woven polypropylene bags would have to be reused 11 times to match environmentally the conventional thin bag used just once. Paper bags would have to be reused three times to lower their global warming potential to match that of a conventional HDPE plastic shopping bag being used just once.

5955 Airport Road, Suite 125, Mississauga, ON L4V 1R9

t. 905.678.7748 • f. 905.678.0774 • www.plastics.ca