Editor:
In Coast Reporter, March 19, the story "SCRD confirms transfer station option" has some misleading information in it.
First of all, David Suzuki, in his February newsletter, called the "triple bottom line nonsense" in matters where the environment is concerned. This same antiquated tool is so often used to manipulate the process. The triple bottom line should be using "the environment" as the main factor for deciding anything in our community to do with recycling and waste management.
Second, zero waste/resource recovery is very simple and very cost effective. Each of us plays a role and waste isn't viewed as garbage, but as a resource that has value. A transfer station is the opposite of zero waste, yet, the SCRD is supposedly a zero waste community. In real zero waste communities, resource recovery facilities end up with little to transfer.
As a zero waste advocate and the owner of a resource recovery facility in Gibsons, it must be noted not one penny of taxpayers' money has been spent on supporting our efforts, but millions has been spent on transferring a few recyclables from Gibsons to Sechelt. Now the same is set for Pender Harbour. Needless trucking is unsustainable. Local solutions always trump such silliness. Local jobs are created and the environment and our children's future are benefactors. Not one item should leave Pender Harbour for the Sechelt landfill. That is, of course, if zero waste is the goal.
I am saddened to see the term zero waste used in our community as a banding tool to mislead the public. The actions scream out waste. But it is possible to turn this around. By simply working together towards being a real sustainable community. It's not hard.
Buddy Boyd
Gibsons
