This is a pretty sweet article, by NOW's Wayne Roberts. This is a spirited brazen piece of writing, and I hope to see more :)

A clean conscience
Don’t panic – eco fees will break bad buying habits and save public cash
By Wayne Roberts

Every time I see a shopper at the checkout counter stuff an armful of food into a purse or briefcase, I’m reminded how willing we are to put ourselves out to save the 5 cent tax on plastic bags and cheerfully do the right thing.

Now we’re being asked to put out some more. Since July 1, Stewardship Ontario has been imposing a special fee on everyday household products like aerosol sprays, rust removers, fertilizers, bleach, CFL light bulbs, etc. that contain toxic or dangerous substances.

The new premium is not a perfect arrangement – any problem as complex as toxicity needs a full suite of government policies, and the bungling of the launch by retailers’ overcharging isn’t helping the cause – but, I see the new fee as a big first step nonetheless.

The reality is, residues from these products make it impossible to recycle or landfill the packaging alongside containers of water, beans or catsup; polluted containers have to be segregated from regular recyclables and taken to a special site, and someone has to pay for it.

True, Stewardship Ontario, an agency set up by the former Conservative premier, isn’t a government body. It’s an industry panel whose board includes reps from the Retail Council of Canada, Loblaw, Clorox, Canadian Tire, Procter & Gamble, McCain Foods and the like.

Some see this as a case of governments giving away revenue-raising power and control to big corporations; others see it as a simple, practical way of enforcing corporate responsibility.

The timing of the fee’s initiation couldn’t be worse. I’ll be sure to nominate the same-day launch of the HST tax and the toxic container fee for the annual provincial government Dunce Cap Award.

To support my nomination, I’ll point out that imposition of the new fee was not preceded by public outreach or education by Stewardship Ontario. Staff in the agency’s PR department told the media that the $2.5 million education campaign would have more impact after the new fee was actually being charged.

Bad promo notwithstanding, the fee deserves kudos: it’s a precedent-setting move in North America to bring the full cost of everyday toxic materials into public view. To avoid paying it, all consumers have to do – and this is why it’s called a voluntary fee, not a compulsory tax – is buy a contaminant-free product.

If folks can wrap their heads around that reasoning, they’ll switch to safer household products, as Germany’s successful recycling and re-use program suggests.

That’s why greens have long advocated the “polluter pay” principle. It puts consumers in the power position by saddling them with fuller responsibility for their unwise choices. That creates change without the fuss or muss of detailed government regulation. The marketplace does the work. That’s the theory – and now we’ll see if it delivers.

But there’s also a hidden bonus for taxpayers. Until July 1, when the eco fees came into effect, the full life-cycle cost of a polluting product was paid by innocent bystanders, the taxpaying public – even those who didn’t buy anything harmful.

The standard rule governing enviro practices in North America has been that green shoppers pay twice: they pay extra at the checkout counter to buy green, and then they pay a second time in taxes to cover the public costs of cleaning up land, air and water dirtied by the bleach or fertilizer of someone who saved money by buying a toxic product.

It was like asking non-smokers to pay for second-hand smoke.

That will change once eco-fees give shoppers the hint. One way to reduce taxes is to reduce costs to the public by preventing the need for expensive clean-ups. Household toxins create countless government costs, including emergency medical care for children and pets who mistakenly lick or swallow the contents, not to mention air, water and land pollution.

Logically, the more the real costs of irresponsible manufacturing and consuming practices are covered by fees (how about a levy on imported food to cover smog, highway congestion and road damage?), the less taxes have to pay the freight.

Anyone who opposes compulsory tax grabs should be a fan of voluntary fees. Taxes should cover the costs of services to the public – education, for example – not the costs of bad decisions .

Some sceptics think Stewardship Ontario is just the industry self-regulating, and lament that it’s allowed to collect money from consumers with no binding obligation to spend it any particular way.

On the other hand, Mike Schreiner, head of the Green Party of Ontario, sees the new policy as a tiny motion toward the Greens’ vision of raising revenues from taxing bad enviro deeds while lowering taxes for low-income people.

Whatever your opinion on that matter, this change carries a clear message: it’s easier to pay a little now than to pay more later. Sometimes the best things in life are fee.

news@nowtoronto.com