“The Planet is not an Ashtray” – It’s Time to Stop Throwing Cigarette Butts on the Ground

Raise your hand if you’ve ever witnessed someone flick their burnt out cigarette butt onto the ground while they’re standing outside the pub, or walking down the sidewalk. Or, if you’ve ever driven over a still-lit cigarette on the road after the driver in front of you chucked it out the window of their moving car.

In a public setting, throwing a soda can or an empty coffee cup onto the ground is a hard no, often met with swift social backlash by surrounding witnesses. So why, then, is it considered socially acceptable to throw cigarette butts – literal chemical trash on fire – onto the ground?
While the act of discarding a cigarette butt onto the ground may seem insignificant in the moment, statistics show the staggering and destructive impact this decision has on the environment when made by millions of people every day.

According to a National Geographic article released in August 2019, cigarettes are the top plastic polluters around the world. Globally, approximately 6.5 trillion cigarettes are purchased each year, and of those, “an estimated two-thirds of the trillions of filters used each year are tossed into the environment.”

Cigarettes are not biodegradable. The breakdown that results from weathering and time spent in the elements leads to further environmental degradation, as thousands of microscopic plastic fibers and chemicals are released. The chemicals found in cigarette ash and filters, which include arsenic, lead and benzene, among others, are poisonous to the environment and its inhabitants.
In 2019, a study led by Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) was published in the journal of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety highlighting how cigarette butts significantly reduce plant growth. “We believe it is the chemical composition of the filter that is causing damage to the plants,” says co-author Dr. Bas Boots, “Most are made from cellulose acetate fibers, and added chemicals which make the plastic more flexible … may also be leaching out and adversely affecting the early stages of plant development.”

In addition to inhibiting early plant growth, cigarette litter consistently ends up in waterways that lead to surrounding rivers, lakes, and the ocean. This contaminates the water with dangerous chemicals and plastics that poison marine life and other animals, who often mistake cigarette butts for food.
Not to mention, in regions experiencing hotter, dryer climates, cigarette butts can lead to wildfires when discarded before being properly extinguished. In June 2019, the Vancouver Island Fire Department responded to 7 fires in 7 days, all of which were caused by improperly discarded cigarette butts.

The social norm that permits cigarette butts as an acceptable form of litter is far outdated. Cigarette litter should be held to the same standard as all other forms of chemical and plastic waste that negatively impact the environment, meaning the onus is on the user to ensure proper, safe disposal.

Brain Garden is a family run business based in Vernon, British Columbia, on an international mission to eliminate cigarette litter and its detrimental environmental effects.

Founded by ‘Head Gardener” Jack Elliman in 2013, Brain Garden manufactures eco-friendly, airtight Pocket Ashtrays for safe, on-the-go disposal of cigarette butts. When users drop their lit cigarettes into the Pocket Ashtray and snap it shut, the airtight seal extinguishes the butt and traps the smoke, successfully tackling two of the main reasons individuals litter in the first place – convenience and lingering smell.
The inspiration for the Pocket Ashtray originated in the transformational festival industry, where individuals are encouraged, if not required, to leave no trace. Though not as commonly as on a city sidewalk, even there, Elliman noticed, cigarette butts were ending up on the ground. It was there Elliman identified the need for a convenient, eco-conscious solution to keep cigarette butts from ending up in the environment.

From there, the environmentally friendly invention has expanded into the global market as a convenient, educational product that leads to less cigarette waste littering our towns, contaminating our waterways, harming our wildlife, and causing wildfires.
“It really comes down to education,” says Elliman, inventor of the Pocket Ashtray, “people forget that cigarette waste is toxic waste, and now with COVID, it’s a biohazard as well.” Since the launch of Brain Garden nine years ago, hundreds of thousands of Pocket Ashtrays have been distributed to cities, fire departments, music festivals, cleanup groups and more worldwide.

The story doesn’t end there, however. The Pocket Ashtray goes one step beyond simply keeping cigarette litter off the ground. Once the Pocket Ashtray becomes full, the contents can be mailed to TerraCycle using free shipping labels provided by Brain Garden, compliments of TerraCycle. From there, TerraCycle composts the remaining paper and tobacco and recycles the cellulose acetate.

“We are approaching 1000 total pounds of recycled cigarette litter with TerraCycle,” says Elliman. This half-ton milestone is a result of global participation in various Brain Garden cigarette litter campaigns, including “butt barrels” and “butt buckets” which function alongside the Pocket Ashtrays.
The funds generated from the recycling process with TerraCycle are then put towards the Brain Garden Wildfire Prevention and Education Campaign. This campaign focuses on reducing wildfire risk by providing free Pocket Ashtrays to the smokers, promoting safe and responsible cigarette disposal, and educating the public about the dangers of improperly discarded cigarette butts.

It’s 2021. Time to respect the environment, be a good human and use an ashtray.

For more information on the Pocket Ashtray and how to join Jack Elliman and Brain Garden on their ongoing mission to protect the environment from the largest global plastic pollutant, visit https://braingarden.ca

For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary.

Up Next

No lockdowns in Alberta if Emergency Management Agency was in charge – Former Executive Director David Redman

Don't Miss

Is The Oil & Gas Demand Real?

Meghanne Uptigrove

Follow Author

Volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Calgary and Area

Alberta / 4 years ago

Raising the Bar and Drawing the Line – Men for the Eradication of Violence Against Women

Alberta / 4 years ago

Violence Against Women is a Crisis in Every Single City

Alberta

Equalization program disincentivizes provinces from improving their economies

Published on September 11, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

As the Alberta Next Panel continues discussions on how to assert the province’s role in the federation, equalization remains a key issue. Among separatists in the province, a striking 88 per cent support ending equalization despite it being a constitutional requirement. But all Canadians should demand equalization reform. The program conceptually and practically creates real disincentives for economic growth, which is key to improving living standards.

First, a bit of background.

The goal of equalization is to ensure that each province can deliver reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. To determine which provinces receive equalization payments, the equalization formula applies a hypothetical national average tax rate to different sources of revenue (e.g. personal income and business income) to calculate how much revenue a province could generate. In theory, provinces that would raise less revenue than the national average (on a per-person basis) receive equalization, while province’s that would raise more than the national average do not. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country then redistributes money to these “have not” provinces through equalization.

This year, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and all of Atlantic Canada will receive a share of the $26.2 billion in equalization spending. Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan—calculated to have a higher-than-average ability to raise revenue—will not receive payments.

Of course, equalization has long been a contentious issue for contributing provinces including Alberta. But the program also causes problems for recipient or “have not” provinces that may fall into a welfare trap. Again, according to the principle of equalization, as a province’s economic fortunes improve and its ability to raise revenues increases, its equalization payments should decline or even end.

Consequently, the program may disincentivize provinces from improving their economies. Take, for example, natural resource development. In addition to applying a hypothetical national average tax rate to different sources of provincial revenue, the equalization formula measures actual real-world natural resource revenues. That means that what any provincial government receives in natural resource revenue (e.g. oil and hydro royalties) directly affects whether or not it will receive equalization—and how much it will receive.

According to a 2020 study, if a province receiving equalization chose to increase its natural resource revenues by 10 per cent, up to 97 per cent of that new revenue could be offset by reductions in equalization.

This has real implications. In 2018, for instance, the Quebec government banned shale gas fracking and tightened rules for oil and gas drilling, despite the existence of up to 36 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the Saint Lawrence Valley, with an estimated worth of between $68 billion and $186 billion. Then in 2022, the Quebec government banned new oil and gas development. While many factors likely played into this decision, equalization “claw-backs” create a disincentive for resource development in recipient provinces. At the same time, provinces that generally develop their resources—including Alberta—are effectively punished and do not receive equalization.

The current formula also encourages recipient provinces to raise tax rates. Recall, the formula calculates how much money each province could hypothetically generate if they all applied a national average tax structure. Raising personal or business tax rates would raise the national average used in the formula, that “have not” provinces are topped up to, which can lead to a higher equalization payment. At the same time, higher tax rates can cause a decline in a province’s tax base (i.e. the amount of income subject to taxes) as some taxpayers work or invest less within that jurisdiction, or engage in more tax planning to reduce their tax bills. A lower tax base reduces the amount of revenue that provincial governments can raise, which can again lead to higher equalization payments. This incentive problem is economically damaging for provinces as high tax rates reduce incentives for work, savings, investment and entrepreneurship.

It’s conceivable that a province may be no better off with equalization because of the program’s negative economic incentives. Put simply, equalization creates problems for provinces across the country—even recipient provinces—and it’s time Canadians demand reform.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Joel Emes

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Provincial pension plan could boost retirement savings for Albertans

Published on September 11, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

In 2026, Albertans may vote on whether or not to leave the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) for a provincial pension plan. While they should weigh the cost and benefits, one thing is clear—Albertans could boost their retirement savings under a provincial pension plan.

Compared to the rest of Canada, Alberta has relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and a younger population. Subsequently, Albertans collectively contribute more to the CPP than retirees in the province receive in total CPP payments.

Indeed, from 1981 to 2022 (the latest year of available data), Alberta workers paid 14.4 per cent (annually, on average) of total CPP contributions (typically from their paycheques) while retirees in the province received 10.0 per cent of the payments. That’s a net contribution of $53.6 billion from Albertans over the period.

Alberta’s demographic and income advantages also mean that if the province left the CPP, Albertans could pay lower contribution rates while still receiving the same retirement benefits under a provincial pension plan (in fact, the CPP Act requires that to leave CPP, a province must provide a comparable plan with comparable benefits). This would mean Albertans keep more of their money, which they can use to boost their private retirement savings (e.g. RRSPs or TFSAs).

According to one estimate, Albertans’ contribution rate could fall from 9.9 per cent (the current base CPP rate) to 5.85 per cent under a provincial pension plan. Under this scenario, a typical Albertan earning the median income ($50,000 in 2025) and contributing since age 18, would save $50,023 over their lifetime from paying a lower rate under provincial pension plan. Thanks to the power of compound interest, with a 7.1 per cent (average) nominal rate of return (based on a balanced portfolio of investments), those savings could grow to nearly $190,000 over the same worker’s lifetime.

Pair that amount with what you’d receive from the new provincial pension plan ($265,000) and you’d have $455,000 in retirement income (pre-tax)—nearly 72 per cent more than under the CPP alone.

To be clear, exactly how much you’d save depends on the specific contribution rate for the new provincial pension plan. We use 5.85 per cent in the above scenario, but estimates vary. But even if we assume a higher contribution rate, Albertan’s could still receive more in retirement with the provincial pension plan compared to the current CPP.

Consider the potential with a provincial pension contribution rate of 8.21 per cent. A typical Albertan, contributing since age 18, would generate $330,000 in pre-tax retirement income from the new provincial pension plan plus their private savings, which is nearly one quarter larger than they’d receive from the CPP alone (again, $265,000).

Albertans should consider the full costs and benefits of a provincial pension plan, but it’s clearly Albertans could benefit from higher retirement income due to increased private savings.