In a recent personal finance article by Preet Banerjee in the Globe & Mail, Mr. Banerjee extols the personal financial benefits of ordering a set of 4 wheels and tires from a U.S. online company and arranging to have these goods shipped to an address near the border, where he drives to pick them up. By doing this, he saves about $200 or 11% (net of mounting and balancing) on his purchase.  His philosophy regarding this transaction is “And while I feel for Canadian businesses, I feel for myself more. I go where the deals are best.”

I don’t want to get into a debate about cross border shopping or the price of goods north and south of the border, and I certainly understand the thrill of getting a deal, but I feel it is important to point out the extended personal economic and environmental impact of this behaviour, and raise the broader issue we should all consider as consumers, what are our obligations when we make a decision to purchase a product?

Ontario residents have already lived through the cost and environmental fallout from the 1990 Hagersville fire due to the then poor, scrap tire management in the province. Since that time, the Ministry of the Environment, working with the tire manufacturers and suppliers, established Ontario Tire Stewardship (OTS) to ensure that used tires were no longer landfilled, illegally dumped or burned. The program is funded by these companies to make certain that these tires are responsibly diverted from landfill and increasingly turned into new green products at the end of their life. Minimizing the environmental impact and helping turn what was a problem into an opportunity. The costs of delivering this program are the responsibility of the companies, who in turn pass them along either as a separate charge or in the price of the tire, as they do with every cost involved in their business. 100% of the funds remitted to OTS are used to ensure scrap tires are responsibly recycled, and to drive increased recycling at a recycled product manufacturer, primarily in Ontario.

Every tire that is brought into the province in the manner suggested by Mr. Banerjee will also eventually be recycled by OTS. However, in this case, the supplier of the tire may not pay into the Ontario recycling program. Meaning all of us who do buy tires in the province have to pay the costs of these “free riders”. Even worse, the impact is cumulative.  If even 5% of Ontario’s ~13 million residents were to buy just one tire a year elsewhere, instead of buying in the province and supporting the end of life funding model, that would effectively increase costs borne by the rest of us by approximately $2.9 million, roughly equal to what OTS has spent on cleaning-up tire piles (764,000 passenger tire equivalents in 228 communities) in Ontario to date.

Ontario has a highly effective Used Tires program in place that diverts 100% all scrap tires from landfills and burning, and has managed the responsible recycling of over 33 million tires since the program began in 2009. The Used Tires program also contributes to the green economy through the many companies that have entered the market or expanded their capacity to support the tire recycling process. This investment has led to the creation of new jobs, new revenues for the municipal and provincial governments, and new opportunities for the green economy to grow in Ontario.

Is it really worth undermining the success of this program and its positive impact on the environment and economy for an 11% savings?  In his vernacular ……While I feel for Mr. Banerjee’s wallet, I feel for our shared environment and the health of my family and community more.” As informed consumers, we should all be mindful that the “lowest price”, is not always the “lowest cost”.

Andrew Horsman

Ontario Tire Stewardship, Executive Director