Has Ontario’s housing ‘plan’ been built on a foundation of evidentiary sand?

News Feed
Friday, January 27, 2023

By Mark Winfield In late 2022, the Ontario government adopted Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. The legislation made sweeping changes to the province’s land use planning system. The province also passed Bill 39 — Better Municipal Governance Act, 2022 — which allows the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to pass bylaws related to provincial “priorities” like housing with only a third of the support of their councils. Premier Doug Ford’s government justified the adoption of this sweeping housing legislation, as well as the opening of parts of Ontario’s Greenbelt for development, on the basis of the need to address “the housing supply crisis.” We’re breaking news in Ontario The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling environment stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism. We’re breaking news in Ontario The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling environment stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the latest scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism. Specifically, the province pointed to a February 2022 provincial housing affordability task force report, which said that Ontario needed to build 1.5 million homes over the next decade to address the shortage of housing. The task force report provided the foundation for shredding of much of the province’s land-use planning and local governance structures, all in favour of development interests. But there has been very little serious examination of how the task force arrived at the 1.5 million homes figure. A report that doesn’t add up The provincial housing task force report stated that Ontario was 1.2 million houses short of the G7 average and needed to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years. This would imply building 150,000 new dwellings per year. Ontario’s population grew by 10.7 per cent from 2011 to 2021, while the number of occupied dwellings grew by 12.5 per cent. This means that the number of dwellings has actually been growing faster than the population. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal In order to reach this conclusion, the task force report claimed that Canada has the lowest number of houses per 1,000 people of any G7 nation. However, it has been observed that the number of dwellings per 1,000 people is not a very useful comparison because people live in households. In Ontario, because the average household size is 2.58 people per household, 1,000 people would only require 388 housing units, whereas in Germany, for example, 1,000 people would require 507 dwelling units because of an average household size of only 1.97. It has also been suggested that the task force report was over-aggressive in calling for 150,000 new dwellings per year. Ontario’s population grew by an average of 155,090 per year from 2016 to 2021. Applying the Ontario average household size to this population growth rate reveals that the need for housing is roughly 60,000 new households per year, not 150,000. The construction of 60,000 houses is actually lower than the 79,000 housing starts Ontario averaged per year between 2016 and 2021. What’s more, Ontario’s population grew by 10.7 per cent from 2011 to 2021, while the number of occupied dwellings grew by 12.5 per cent. This means that the number of dwellings has actually been growing faster than the population. The need for land to build housing was a key justification in the Progressive Conservative government’s decision to remove protections from some greenspace and agricultural land in the Greenbelt. But its own task force confirmed there is plenty of land available in existing urban areas. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal Unnecessary Greenbelt developments Ontario’s construction industry is already working at capacity. Toronto is reported as having the largest number of active construction cranes in North America and has recorded high numbers of condominium completions. With respect to the supply of land — which was a key justification for the government’s decision to remove lands from the Greenbelt — the task force report itself confirmed that there is plenty of land available in existing urban areas. This includes at least 250,000 new homes and apartments that were approved in 2019 or earlier but have not yet been built. Research undertaken for the environmental organization Environmental Defence revealed that the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas have 88,000 acres of already designated new (or greenfield or undeveloped) development lands within existing settlement area boundaries. That is more than three time the amount of greenfield land (26,000 acres) used for development over the preceding two decades. Building a sustainable and liveable province All of this evidence suggests that there was neither a shortage of already authorized housing starts to accommodate Ontario’s growing population, nor a shortage of already designated land on which to build homes. Simply put, the province’s sweeping housing strategy has been built on a foundation of sand. The reality is that the region is already in the midst of a major development boom. The problem is that it has been a boom that has done little to improve housing affordability, particularly for those at the lower end of the income scale who need it the most. The housing “crisis” has had less to do with housing supply, and far more to do with the nature and location of what is being built. At least 250,000 new homes and apartments that were approved in 2019 or earlier have not yet been built. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal The draconian measures in Bills 23 and 39, and the province’s accompanying moves to remove lands from the Greenbelt and allow development in the Duffins-Rouge Agricultural Reserve, seem likely to make these problems worse than ever. The regressive changes being made under the province’s housing legislation will accelerate urban sprawl and the accompanying losses of prime agricultural and natural heritage lands. They would undermine efforts to build and protect real affordable housing and liveable communities, respond to a changing climate and ensure democratic governance at the local level. The questions of housing and development in the Greater Toronto Area are far more complicated than a need to simply build more and faster. Increased federal immigration targets put additional stress on the housing market. But if anything, that reinforces the need for a vision for a sustainable, liveable and affordable region and not one focused on maximizing the development industry’s returns on investment. The debates prompted by the Ford government’s housing strategy may mark the beginning of a conversation about what that future might look like. They cannot be its end. Joe Castrilli, Counsel with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, contributed to this article.

By Mark Winfield The need for Ontario to build 1.5 million homes over the next decade forms the basis for the government's massive changes to land-use policy. But there has been little examination of how the province's housing affordability task force arrived at that figure

In late 2022, the Ontario government adopted Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. The legislation made sweeping changes to the province’s land use planning system.

The province also passed Bill 39 — Better Municipal Governance Act, 2022 — which allows the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to pass bylaws related to provincial “priorities” like housing with only a third of the support of their councils.

Premier Doug Ford’s government justified the adoption of this sweeping housing legislation, as well as the opening of parts of Ontario’s Greenbelt for development, on the basis of the need to address “the housing supply crisis.”

We’re breaking news in Ontario
The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling environment stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism.
We’re breaking news in Ontario
The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling environment stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the latest scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism.

Specifically, the province pointed to a February 2022 provincial housing affordability task force report, which said that Ontario needed to build 1.5 million homes over the next decade to address the shortage of housing.

The task force report provided the foundation for shredding of much of the province’s land-use planning and local governance structures, all in favour of development interests. But there has been very little serious examination of how the task force arrived at the 1.5 million homes figure.

A report that doesn’t add up

The provincial housing task force report stated that Ontario was 1.2 million houses short of the G7 average and needed to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years. This would imply building 150,000 new dwellings per year.

Housing development outside of Milton, Ont.
Ontario’s population grew by 10.7 per cent from 2011 to 2021, while the number of occupied dwellings grew by 12.5 per cent. This means that the number of dwellings has actually been growing faster than the population. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

In order to reach this conclusion, the task force report claimed that Canada has the lowest number of houses per 1,000 people of any G7 nation. However, it has been observed that the number of dwellings per 1,000 people is not a very useful comparison because people live in households.

In Ontario, because the average household size is 2.58 people per household, 1,000 people would only require 388 housing units, whereas in Germany, for example, 1,000 people would require 507 dwelling units because of an average household size of only 1.97.

It has also been suggested that the task force report was over-aggressive in calling for 150,000 new dwellings per year.

Ontario’s population grew by an average of 155,090 per year from 2016 to 2021. Applying the Ontario average household size to this population growth rate reveals that the need for housing is roughly 60,000 new households per year, not 150,000.

The construction of 60,000 houses is actually lower than the 79,000 housing starts Ontario averaged per year between 2016 and 2021.

What’s more, Ontario’s population grew by 10.7 per cent from 2011 to 2021, while the number of occupied dwellings grew by 12.5 per cent. This means that the number of dwellings has actually been growing faster than the population.

A photo of farmlands in the Greenbelt region of Durham County, in Ontario.
The need for land to build housing was a key justification in the Progressive Conservative government’s decision to remove protections from some greenspace and agricultural land in the Greenbelt. But its own task force confirmed there is plenty of land available in existing urban areas. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Unnecessary Greenbelt developments

Ontario’s construction industry is already working at capacity. Toronto is reported as having the largest number of active construction cranes in North America and has recorded high numbers of condominium completions.

With respect to the supply of land — which was a key justification for the government’s decision to remove lands from the Greenbelt — the task force report itself confirmed that there is plenty of land available in existing urban areas. This includes at least 250,000 new homes and apartments that were approved in 2019 or earlier but have not yet been built.

Research undertaken for the environmental organization Environmental Defence revealed that the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas have 88,000 acres of already designated new (or greenfield or undeveloped) development lands within existing settlement area boundaries.

That is more than three time the amount of greenfield land (26,000 acres) used for development over the preceding two decades.

Building a sustainable and liveable province

All of this evidence suggests that there was neither a shortage of already authorized housing starts to accommodate Ontario’s growing population, nor a shortage of already designated land on which to build homes.

Simply put, the province’s sweeping housing strategy has been built on a foundation of sand.

The reality is that the region is already in the midst of a major development boom. The problem is that it has been a boom that has done little to improve housing affordability, particularly for those at the lower end of the income scale who need it the most.

The housing “crisis” has had less to do with housing supply, and far more to do with the nature and location of what is being built.

An aerial view of a new subdivision in Stoney Creek, Ont., being built near farmland.
At least 250,000 new homes and apartments that were approved in 2019 or earlier have not yet been built. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The draconian measures in Bills 23 and 39, and the province’s accompanying moves to remove lands from the Greenbelt and allow development in the Duffins-Rouge Agricultural Reserve, seem likely to make these problems worse than ever.

The regressive changes being made under the province’s housing legislation will accelerate urban sprawl and the accompanying losses of prime agricultural and natural heritage lands.

They would undermine efforts to build and protect real affordable housing and liveable communities, respond to a changing climate and ensure democratic governance at the local level.

The questions of housing and development in the Greater Toronto Area are far more complicated than a need to simply build more and faster.

Increased federal immigration targets put additional stress on the housing market. But if anything, that reinforces the need for a vision for a sustainable, liveable and affordable region and not one focused on maximizing the development industry’s returns on investment.

The debates prompted by the Ford government’s housing strategy may mark the beginning of a conversation about what that future might look like. They cannot be its end.

Joe Castrilli, Counsel with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, contributed to this article.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

How the Ontario government muzzled its Greenbelt Council

By Emma McIntosh Documents show that a shrunken, ever-changing council was forbidden from speaking freely, as development encroaches on the once-protected area

By Emma McIntosh Over the past two years, the Ontario government moved to muzzle the council that advises it about the Greenbelt as it shuffled its work behind closed doors, documents show Ever since, as the government moved toward its contentious decision to remove land from the protected area, the council saw constant turnover in its members, whose numbers have now shrunk to just a handful.  The Greenbelt Council exists to give advice to the provincial government about issues related to the Greenbelt, a protected area of farmland, forests and waterways ringing around the Greater Toronto Area. For years, the council sent its recommendations through letters to the minister of municipal affairs, currently Steve Clark, that were made public several times per year. But the council abruptly went quiet in late 2020 when more than half of its members resigned in protest of Premier Doug Ford’s environmental policies.  Since then, the council has only piped up once, when its last chair supported the government’s 2022 removal of 7,400 acres from the protected area to build homes — a departure from the council’s longtime support for maintaining the Greenbelt in its entirety.  Documents obtained by The Narwhal explain the silence: after the mass resignations, the government changed the rules of the Greenbelt Council to make its advice confidential, and to restrict its members’ ability to talk to journalists. We’re investigating Ontario’s environmental cuts The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the latest scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism. We’re investigating Ontario’s environmental cuts The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the latest scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism. The new rules were first laid out in a “media relations protocol” document for the council in March 2021, three months after the resignations, which was obtained by The Narwhal through a freedom of information request. Though the chair of the Greenbelt Council used to be able to freely share the group’s advice publicly and answer questions from reporters, the new protocol says the chair can only answer questions about the council’s mandate and processes. The other members of the panel can answer questions about their roles and professional backgrounds but are bound to “keep council deliberations confidential.” “Refer other questions to the [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing] communications branch],” the protocol reads. “Council’s advice to the minister is considered confidential unless the minister approves its release.” A document obtained by The Narwhal through a freedom of information request shows the media protocol the Ontario government gave the Greenbelt Council in March 2021, months after half its members resigned en masse. The new version instructed members to keep their advice confidential and to direct media requests to the government. Greenbelt Council rules changed in 2022: documents The new confidentiality requirements were also codified a year later, in March 2022 terms of reference for the Greenbelt Council obtained by The Narwhal through the same freedom of information request. The Narwhal compared the 2022 terms of reference, which are still in effect now, with the previous terms of reference from 2018, which were provided by a source.  Other revisions in the 2022 version alter the Greenbelt Council’s function in subtler ways.  Previous councils gave the minister advice when asked, but also had the freedom to give advice unprompted, on any issues the members decided were important. Now, the topics must be “determined through consultation between the minister and chair.” The 2022 terms of reference removed a paragraph from the old version specifying the point of the Greenbelt is to “manage growth, build complete communities, curb sprawl and protect the natural environment.”  The new terms of reference also tweaked the description of who members of the council should be.  The 2018 version said members “shall be drawn from various sectors or individuals that support the objectives of the Greenbelt.” It also recommended members could come from conservation authorities — watershed management agencies, whose powers the current Ontario government has repeatedly cut — that work in support of the Greenbelt. Ontario’s Greenbelt is a ring of protected land on the edges of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, encompassing farmland, forests and watersheds. Development has mostly been forbidden there since it was created in 2005, but last year, the provincial government removed 7,400 acres from it in what it said was a bid to build more housing. Photos: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal The new version removed the reference to conservation authorities. Now, members should come from a “diverse range of various sectors (e.g. municipal, academia, agricultural, development, environmental, housing, business/economic development, infrastructure, transportation) or individuals that support the objectives of the Greenbelt to provide a balanced representation.” Clark’s office and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing didn’t acknowledge repeated emails from The Narwhal with a list of detailed questions about the intent of the media protocol and edits to the terms of reference. The government also didn’t answer when asked whether the changes were intended to help lay the groundwork for its removals of land from the Greenbelt in late 2022.  Taken together, the government’s changes to the Greenbelt Council over the past two years keep the public in the dark, Tim Gray, the executive director of the advocacy organization Environmental Defence, said in an interview. “It’s what you’d do if you wanted to make sure that [the Greenbelt Council] was a lot less effective and didn’t give information to the public and didn’t advocate for the Greenbelt,” Gray said. “It would definitely ensure that the minister wouldn’t have to be nervous about a Greenbelt Council saying anything publicly about the attack on the Greenbelt, because it effectively cut off its ability to release public reports or speak to the media directly.” A comparison of the 2018 and 2022 versions of the Greenbelt Council’s terms of reference. Illustration: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal Turnover has quietly continued on Ontario’s Greenbelt Council since 2020  It’s not uncommon for government advisory panels to be bound by confidentiality. But it is unusual for the Greenbelt Council. Prior to the 2020 resignations, the council spoke up about a variety of land use issues in southern Ontario. In the months leading up to the resignations, the council had pushed the government to drop a plan to allow quarries to be built in endangered species habitat, and asked the province to reconsider plans to build Highway 413 through the Greenbelt.  The first rumbling of trouble, however, came when one member of the council resigned in November 2020 over the province’s decision to fast-track development on the Lower Duffins Creek wetland east of Toronto. “I cannot in all conscience continue to sit on the Greenbelt Council which has provided you with its best advice … which seems to me to have not been given due consideration,” Linda Pim, an environmental biologist and land use planner, said in her resignation letter. The tension erupted a month later when the council was rocked by a mass exodus in protest of a 2020 move to disempower conservation authorities. First, it was the chair at the time, David Crombie, a former Progressive Conservative MP and mayor of Toronto, who said the changes were “disastrous” and “high-level bombing” that “needs to be resisted.” Six more members followed his lead the next day and quit.  The backlash continued when the Ontario government appointed Crombie’s replacement, Norm Sterling, a former Progressive Conservative environment minister who voted against the creation of the Greenbelt in 2005.  Although the council hasn’t said much publicly since, turnover has continued to keep its numbers in flux.  Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark is oversees the Greenbelt and the Greenbelt Council. Photo: Government of Ontario / Flickr Before the high-profile resignations in December 2020, the Greenbelt Council had 13 members. Afterwards, it lost even more members and was gradually whittled down to four in 2021. Over time, the government gradually appointed more, reaching nine members in mid-2022, according to archived versions of its member list. But in the months leading up to the government’s decision to remove land from the Greenbelt, the council’s numbers began to dwindle again — five have departed since last summer.  Two members — Michael Williams of the charity Ducks Unlimited Canada and retired lawyer Michael Fowler — left after their terms expired in summer 2022. Williams did not respond to an email from The Narwhal. Fowler declined to comment on his time with the Greenbelt Council. Others left before their terms were up. Sterling led the council when the new terms of reference were authored in March 2022, but left later that year, before the government publicly proposed cutting into the Greenbelt. Sterling didn’t answer emailed questions from The Narwhal about why he exited the job when his appointment still had more than a year left. In roughly the same span of time, two other members also left early: Peel Regional Councillor Johanna Downey and Patrick Molloy, the former mayor of the town of Uxbridge. Downey did not answer an email and Molloy did not respond to a request sent via LinkedIn. A sixth member, former Ontario finance minister Charles Sousa, was briefly appointed to the council in October 2022 but left after about three weeks to run for a federal seat — Sousa is now a Liberal MP. In an email, Sousa said he never sat in an official Greenbelt Council meeting so he couldn’t comment on changes to the terms of reference and media protocol, but he believes it’s possible to increase housing supply without cutting into green space. Ontario’s Greenbelt Council used to make its letters to the government public and weigh in on a variety of land use issues. But since the Ford government penned new rules for the council, it has rarely spoken publicly. Photos: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal “To protect the Greenbelt we need smart growth: a proper balance between competing demands for housing, economic growth and environmental sustainability,” Sousa said. “I felt that I could make a positive impact and make appropriate recommendations in finding that right balance.” Sousa added he had already put in his resignation when the changes to the Greenbelt were announced: “I was prepared to do my best to work with the group and ensure this tremendous area is preserved for generations to come. Unfortunately, I was not able to contribute in the way I had hoped.” Former Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion was appointed in October 2022 to replace Sterling, but died in January and hasn’t yet been replaced.  The Greenbelt Council now has just four members: Heather French, a co-owner and operator of a grain farm in Caledon, Ont., Toronto Metropolitan University urban planning professor David Amborski, Bradford West Gwillimbury town Councillor Jonathan Scott and environmental consultant Jo-Anne Lane.  In an email to The Narwhal, Amborski declined to answer questions but said it’s not unusual for members of government panels to be unable to speak to media about their work. French and Scott did not respond to emails from The Narwhal. Lane did not answer a message sent via LinkedIn.  The previous chair of the Greenbelt Council publicly supported the province’s plan to cut into the Greenbelt, contradicting the council’s longstanding opposition to development there — as well as the government’s own report that zoning, not land availability, is the root of the housing crisis. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing did not answer when asked when it plans to appoint more members to the Greenbelt Council, or whether the panel is able to function with just four members.  In the past, the Greenbelt Council’s mandate made it an advocate for the Greenbelt and for good land use planning in southern Ontario, Gray said. Without that, it appears the government has turned it into something else.  “Their ability both to choose things that come their way and do reports about them and then release them to the public keeps those issues in the public mind,” Gray said.  “Anything that silences their ability to work on issues that come their way obviously reduces their effectiveness.”

Scientists Sound the Alarm Over a Growing Trash Problem in Space

Even tiny pieces of junk can pose serious risks to astronauts. Scientists call for a global treaty to eliminate increasing orbiting debris.

Sixty-six years ago, there was just a single human-built object in Earth orbit. It was Sputnik, the Soviet Union’s—and the world’s—first satellite, launched on Oct. 4, 1957. Now take a moment and try to guess how many objects—including active satellites, defunct satellites, and bits of debris from all of that space traffic—are currently circling the planet. Have you made your guess? Good. Your answer is wrong. Or let’s put it this way: it’s wrong unless the figure you guessed is 100 trillion. That’s the jaw-dropping number cited by an international team of researchers writing an open letter in last week’s issue of Science, calling for a global treaty to curb the amount of satellites and rubbish that have been forming an ever-growing debris belt in low-Earth orbit for more than three generations now. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] The researchers report that there are currently 9,000 active satellites in orbit—a number expected to grow to over 60,000 by 2030. The 100 trillion figure includes everything from spent boosters and stray bolts, to metal flecks and floating paint chips that went along with launching all of that hardware. And don’t think something as small as a paint chip is harmless. Orbiting the Earth at 28,200 km/hr (17,500 mph), so small a piece of rubbish can strike a spacecraft or other orbiting object like a bullet. Astronauts spacewalking outside the International Space Station report that the skin of the 25-year-old orbiting lab looks in some spots as if it has been hit by buckshot. The astronauts routinely have to shelter in place in one of the attached Soyuz or SpaceX spacecraft to wait out a passing swarm of space debris in case the station gets catastrophically struck and they have to bail out in a hurry. Ultimately, all of this debris will fall back to Earth and incinerate in the atmosphere, but we’re replacing the junk at a faster pace than its orbit can decay. Each of the seven researchers writing in Science are experts in one of two fields: satellite technology and ocean plastic pollution. Why the latter? Because, as they write, the mess we’ve made of the oceans—witness the great Pacific garbage patch, a mass of floating junk that measures twice the area of Texas—mirrors the mess we’re in the process of making in space. The difference: we’ve had centuries to foul the oceans and only decades to do the same in space, and yet we’re not wasting time. “As a marine biologist I never imagined writing a paper on space,” said Heather Koldewey, a senior marine technical adviser at the Zoological Society of London and a coauthor of the letter, in a statement that accompanied its release. “But through this collaborative research [we] identified so many parallels with the challenges of tackling environmental issues in the ocean. We just need to get better at the uptake of science into management and policy.” The researchers see hope for space in the progress that has been made so far in cleaning up the oceans—or at least in nations agreeing to try. In March 2022, world leaders representing 170 nations signed a global plastics treaty at the United Nations Environment Assembly, in an attempt to curb continued dumping of plastics in the oceans and eliminate what is already there. Other negotiations are already underway on a more ambitious Global Plastics Treaty. Similar initiative should be taken now, the authors write, to implement treaties that hold both government and commercial space launch services liable for minimizing the amount of debris their launches create, deorbiting satellites after they’ve reached the end of their functional life, and developing technologies to clean up at least some of the 100-trillion-strong rubbish swarm. “Most nation states have neglected to implement the necessary local space regulations that could promote long-term equitable and sustainable use of Earth’s orbit,” the authors of the letter write. “There is no international treaty that seeks to minimize orbital debris.” That must change—and fast. “To avoid repeating the mistakes that have left the high seas—and all who depend on them—vulnerable, we need collective cooperation, informed by science, to develop a timely, legally binding treaty to protect Earth’s orbit.” A species that is smart enough to have gotten itself to space—an order of magnitude more difficult than initially learning to sail (and foul) the oceans—should be smart enough not to make a mess of things once it gets there. As Moriba Jah, coauthor and associate professor of aerospace engineering at The University of Texas at Austin, put it in a statement, “Marine debris and space debris are both an anthropogenic detriment that is avoidable.”

Plans by Scotland secretary to block bottle deposit return scheme a ‘travesty’

Environmental campaigners furious Alister Jack intends to deny trade exemption for plastic recycling proposalsBlocking the Scottish deposit return scheme for bottles would be an environmental travesty, campaigners said, in a growing backlash to the UK government plans to undermine the project.The charity City to Sea, which has been pushing for a deposit return scheme (DRS) to tackle plastic pollution, said the UK government could have avoided the clash with Scotland by working with the devolved countries to deliver a unified deposit scheme years ago. Instead Westminster had repeatedly delayed its own deposit scheme, which was only coming into force in 2025 – seven years after it was first promised by ministers. Continue reading...

Environmental campaigners furious Alister Jack intends to deny trade exemption for plastic recycling proposalsBlocking the Scottish deposit return scheme for bottles would be an environmental travesty, campaigners said, in a growing backlash to the UK government plans to undermine the project.The charity City to Sea, which has been pushing for a deposit return scheme (DRS) to tackle plastic pollution, said the UK government could have avoided the clash with Scotland by working with the devolved countries to deliver a unified deposit scheme years ago. Instead Westminster had repeatedly delayed its own deposit scheme, which was only coming into force in 2025 – seven years after it was first promised by ministers. Continue reading...

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.