Parry Sound-Muskoka Green Party

 
 
You would be forgiven for not noticing but on July 1st when the new HST came into effect, another fee was quietly introduced. I am referring to the newly added Eco-fee on many commonly purchased products like batteries, pharmaceuticals and paint.

The idea behind the tax (as it is being labelled by many frustrated consumers) is sound. Essentially, an extra fee is attached to certain products in order to provide funds that will be used to ensure the proper disposal of the item at the end of its lifespan.
Unfortunately, there are many flaws in the present initiative that seemed to have been missed either by accident or by design.

The biggest problem rests in the fact that the fee will do nothing to deter companies from making cheap, toxic or poor quality items. At present, once a product leaves the store, the responsibility for disposal of the product falls squarely on citizens and this is evident when we see the portion of our tax bill dedicated to pay for dumps and transfer stations. The idea of the Eco-fee is to add extra money into the price of the product to fund the proper disposal of any hazardous goods.

This is a noble thought but unfortunately, the companies merely build the cost right into the price of the item. This is something they were encouraged to do by Stewardship Ontario, the independent organization that collects the Eco-fee, and provides drop off points (called Orange drops) for the hazardous items.

 The claim is that the industry pays the price. But, by passing on the cost to the consumer, it is very clear that it is us who end up paying and the company is let off the hook. Not only do they not pay, an initial survey on the Eco-fee suggested many retailers level charges that far exceeded the actual amount the item is supposed to be taxed resulting in the company or retailer actually collecting more money than they are required to.

In addition, since the fee is added at the end of the transaction and on a random assortment of items, it is very hard to tell if the product you are buying is subject to a surcharge unless you pour over the bill. Thus, it doesn’t result in avoidance of certain less environmentally friendly products, since you don’t know until you go to pay that the item has the additional cost attached,

Also, there was virtually no notice of the eco-tax being added. The idea of introducing a green initiative, if it is actually meant to be of an actual ecological benefit, is to help people change their habits. You do this through education and by helping people to understand their alternatives.

The fact that there was virtually no notice or education around it, makes the Eco-fee more about the “fee” than it is about the “eco”.

Add to this that some of the products on the list are either already environmentally friendly (like rechargeable batteries) or vital for safety (like fire extinguishers) making them very poor choices for the additional cost.

Regardless of the intent of the Eco-fee, the way that it has been handled and the incredibly poor timing of its introduction has made it very hard to see the overall benefit of such an initiative.

The idea behind the Eco-fee is sound, but it is hard to look beyond some of the major flaws in the program to salvage some of the initiatives good aspects.

It is doubly frustrating since the mismanagement of “green’ initiatives can all too easily turn the average person against ecologically responsible proposals and less likely to support further ideas.

Let’s just assume that this wasn’t part of the plan.
 


Comments




Leave a Reply