Latest news with #BlueBox
Business Upturn
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Business Upturn
Blue Box Season 2: Release date speculation, cast and plot details – Everything we know so far
By Aman Shukla Published on August 7, 2025, 19:53 IST Blue Box stole hearts with its mix of high school romance, intense sports action, and relatable characters. After an amazing first season, fans can't stop talking about what's next for Taiki, Chinatsu, and the crew. Based on Kouji Miura's manga, this anime has everyone hooked, and the buzz for Season 2 is real. Here's the scoop on release date guesses, returning cast, plot hints, and everything else we know so far. Release Date Speculation for Blue Box Season 2 The first season of Blue Box ran from October 3, 2024, to March 27, 2025, delivering 25 episodes across two back-to-back cours. Right after the finale, a big announcement dropped on March 28, 2025, confirming Season 2 with a cool production teaser video. No exact premiere date yet, but let's break it down. Anime production usually takes about a year for a single cour. Since Season 1 wrapped in March 2025, a safe bet for Season 2 is sometime in early 2026—think January to April. Shows like this often stick to similar release windows, so Spring 2026 feels like a solid guess. Netflix and Crunchyroll, where the show streams, will probably share updates closer to the date. Keep those notifications on for official news! Cast: Who's Returning for Blue Box Season 2? The voice actors in Blue Box made every scene pop, and fans are stoked to see who's coming back. Based on how anime usually works, the core cast should return to bring these characters to life again. Here's who's likely to be back: Shoya Chiba as Taiki Inomata, the badminton guy chasing his dreams and his crush. Reina Ueda as Chinatsu Kano, the basketball star who's got Taiki's heart. Akari Kito as Hina Chono, the bubbly friend with her own story to tell. Chiaki Kobayashi as Kyo Kasahara, a key part of the squad. Yuma Uchida as Kengo Haryu, the rival who keeps things intense. Shogo Sakata as Ryosuke Nishida, adding some fun to the mix. Anna Nagase as Nagisa Funami, who might get more spotlight. Asaki Yuikawa as Niina Shimazaki, another player in the group. Season 1's second half introduced Kana Ichinose as Ayame Moriya, and her character shook things up. She's likely to have a bigger role in Season 2, which could mean more drama or surprises. No word on new voices yet, but any fresh faces will probably be announced closer to the premiere. Plot Details: What to Expect in Blue Box Season 2 Season 1 followed the manga pretty closely, covering the early chapters where Taiki and Chinatsu's romance starts to spark while they juggle sports and school. With 188 chapters out in the manga, Season 1 probably got through around chapter 110. Season 2 should pick up from there, likely covering chapters 110 to 120 or so, diving into a big arc where Taiki gears up for a first-year-only badminton tournament and faces tough competition from Sajikawa Senior High. The heart of the show is still Taiki and Chinatsu's slow, sweet romance. Their connection, built on shared goals and quiet moments, will hit new milestones, but expect some bumps along the way as they balance love and their crazy schedules. Ayame Moriya's role could stir things up—maybe some jealousy, new friendships, or even a deeper look at her own story. The manga's creator, Kouji Miura, has said Blue Box isn't just about the main couple getting together; it's about growing up, chasing dreams, and figuring yourself out. So, expect more emotional moments, big games, and maybe a few curveballs. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aman Shukla is a post-graduate in mass communication . A media enthusiast who has a strong hold on communication ,content writing and copy writing. Aman is currently working as journalist at
Hamilton Spectator
15-07-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
From humble beginnings, Lincoln chamber now boasts 300 members
It began when a small group of Beamsville business owners decided to get together and promote their mutual interests. On Sunday, the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce will celebrate its 40th anniversary with a free public event at Rotary Park in Beamsville. 'They really saw a need to have representation in the town for various levels of advocacy and general camaraderie,' said chamber executive director Emilia Amaro, adding documents show the chamber was incorporated on June 25, 1985, with Art Barfoot as president. The chamber's first address appears to be a post office box in Vineland. The office later moved to the Beamsville Towne Centre and in 2019 the chamber moved to its current location on Beam Street. As the Town of Lincoln grew, so did the chamber. 'The Lincoln chamber has been growing exponentially,' Amaro said. 'We now have almost 300 members (and two full-time staff).' Amaro said the business group is busy advocating in several areas, including for better roads and infrastructure and in support of the local tourist industry. She said the chamber and other business groups across the province are currently grappling with the issue of recycling. Under changes to Ontario's Blue Box program, businesses will be responsible for their own recycling starting Jan. 1, 2026. 'It's a huge thing,' said Amaro. She said the changes might lead to more waste going to landfill. 'The option that we feel most businesses will take is to stop recycling.' Sunday's event runs from noon to 4 p.m. and includes live music, more than a dozen vendors, food trucks and a children's colouring contest. 'We're doing this event for celebration, appreciation and awareness,' Amaro said. 'We want people to really understand and be aware that our community is completely made up of businesses supporting them.' See for more information. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
19-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Stouffville Pursuing Centralized Drop-Off Bins for Downtown Business Garbage Collection
● Stouffville Council has directed Town Staff to develop a full implementation plan for centralized, in-ground garbage drop-off bins for Downtown businesses. ● The decision comes ahead of Ontario's 2026 Blue Box program, which will shift recycling collection responsibilities to producers. ● In accordance with the regulations, the Town opted to end all municipal waste collection for businesses, prompting Council to explore alternative solutions for Main Street merchants. ● The selected bins would be locked and accessible only to local businesses, with no recycling collection included following an amendment by Councillor Sue Sherban. ● Her amendment also ensures associated costs would be recovered through the Downtown's special service levy, which is paid exclusively by Village businesses. ● The Village of Stouffville Advisory Committee (VSAC) preferred maintaining curbside collection. ● A report to Council later this year will detail final costs and be presented to VSAC prior to any final approval. Town Council has taken another step toward assisting Stouffville's Downtown with waste collection, opting to investigate a common garbage drop-off area for Main Street businesses set to lose collection services next year. If approved, the model would see shared garbage containers installed at a centralized location, likely alongside 6240 Main Street or in the Park Drive municipal lot. Business owners between Albert Street and Park Drive would hold keys to access the locked bins and be responsible for transporting their own garbage for disposal. A unanimously approved motion from Ward 6 Councillor Sue Sherban has directed Staff to develop a full implementation plan and cost breakdown for the program before final approval. While the option originally included recycling collection, Sherban's amendment red-lined that portion of the proposal. 'Staff have researched…in-ground bins similar to the bins located at the Leisure Centre and Ballantrae Community Centre. These bins are contained within the ground and have an aesthetically pleasing look and minimizes odours as opposed to metal front-end bins,' a related Staff report explains. 'This option could also be beneficial for garbage disposal during the upcoming Main Street construction project,' it adds. The decision is the latest in a months-long review sparked by pending changes stemming from Ontario's Blue Box program. Starting Jan. 1, 2026, producers of paper and packaging products will become solely responsible for collecting and processing residential blue bin materials. While residential collection will continue, the program specifically excludes certain non-eligible sources, such as businesses. Falling in line with those regulations, Stouffville decided to end all municipal waste collection for non-eligible properties. However, through a February Council decision, Staff were instructed to provide municipal collection options for Downtown businesses. In their report to Council, Staff presented four choices, each with varying service types and financial implications. The selected Option A carried an original estimate of $80,000 in installation costs for three garbage bins and three recycling bins, as well as $3,200 in annual garbage collection fees and $7,500 in recycling collection fees. Those costs will be reassessed following Sherban's amendment, and additional resources and expenses would also be necessary to obtain permits and install security cameras to discourage illegal dumping and misuse. Upwards of 12 parking spaces will need to be removed to make room for the bins. Staff cautioned that continuing service for some non-eligible users could trigger demands for similar support from other excluded properties, potentially creating significant financial pressure. They also warned that ratepayers might view such arrangements as unfair subsidies for commercial operators, leading to public complaints. Sherban's motion addressed those concerns by ensuring all costs associated with Option A be fully recovered through the Downtown's special service tax levy. The charge is mandated by the Town and paid exclusively by businesses within the Village core to support work conducted by the Village of Stouffville Advisory Committee (VSAC). Option B, which was strongly preferred by VSAC, would have retained curbside collection using 95-gallon carts placed along Main Street. This approach was projected to cost approximately $260,000 annually, with further expenses if the Town opted to supply the carts to businesses at no charge. Option C proposed deploying Town Staff and a new collection vehicle dedicated to Downtown pickup. That model required a $275,000 capital investment and about $364,000 in annual operating costs. Option D, the most cost-neutral path, would have seen the Town end waste collection for all non-eligible sources, placing full responsibility on Downtown businesses to arrange their own disposal services. Council had initially received the report earlier this month but delayed making a decision until members of VSAC could formally weigh in. While accepting Option A as an adequate fallback, they noted operational inconveniences, winter access challenges, and a possible increase in the amount of waste placed in public garbage bins along Main Street. The strategy will be refined over the coming months and put forward to VSAC before coming to Council for final approval. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
11-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Toronto eyes burning trash as landfill capacity nears limit
With its primary landfill nearing capacity, Toronto is asking residents to consider a range of future waste disposal options, including at least one controversial idea — burning thousands of tonnes of garbage every week. The idea is raising alarms among environmental advocates, who warn that burning trash releases harmful pollutants and poses health risks to nearby communities. To gather public feedback on various disposal solutions, the city is currently running a 10-minute online survey about how waste should be managed in years ahead. Options include expanding landfill capacity, exporting waste to other municipalities or incinerating it to generate electricity — a process known as 'energy-from-waste,' already used in Brampton and Durham Region , and under consideration in Ottawa. Charlotte Ueta, acting director of policy, planning and outreach for Toronto Solid Waste Management Services, says it's too early to commit to any specific plan, and no incineration facility or technology is currently under consideration. However, she acknowledges the situation is urgent, as Canada's largest city still sends an average of 450,000 tonnes of waste annually — more than three CN Towers' worth — to its primary disposal site, the Green Lane Landfill. Ueta says the focus of its ongoing consultation is on waste reduction, reuse and diversion. Toronto has no available land for a new landfill, and provincial policies limit the city's ability to expand or build one elsewhere, she added. However, the survey did ask residents about the option of building an incineration facility within the city. 'That's why we're asking the public about all potential options, including energy-from-waste,' she said. Joseph Lyng, general manager of Brampton-based Emerald Energy From Waste (EFW), says his company has submitted an unsolicited proposal to Toronto to process up to 500,000 tonnes of its garbage annually. The facility already burns about 150,000 tonnes of municipal and commercial waste, generating electricity and heat. Lyng says the plant is expanding to handle up to 900,000 tonnes and produce more than 100 megawatts of energy. Toronto's looming garbage crisis is part of a larger problem across Ontario, where landfill capacity is projected to run out by 2034 . Roughly one third of the province's waste is exported to the US, a strategy many say is unsustainable amid rising trade tensions. Recent changes to Blue Box recycling rules and the scrapping of a deposit-return system for non-alcoholic drink containers have further strained diversion efforts. Meanwhile, resistance to new landfills is growing. Under Bill 197, municipalities can block new sites within 3.5 kilometres of their boundaries, making it harder for Toronto to find alternatives. Lyng believes his company offers part of the solution. 'We don't produce the garbage — we manage it,' he said. Lyng argues that by processing waste close to where it's generated, facilities like Emerald's avoid shifting the environmental burden onto unwilling communities. Environmental groups have long opposed incineration, citing toxic emissions and long-term environmental and health risks. Emily Alfred of the Toronto Environmental Alliance said she's disappointed by the direction of the city's current consultation. While Toronto has long promoted a zero-waste goal and a circular economy , she says the framing of the survey places too much focus on whether to choose landfill or incineration — and not enough on how to meaningfully reduce waste in the first place. Alfred criticized the city's survey design, saying some questions appear biased or confusing, particularly those suggesting incineration could occur in the city. She argues that this frames burning waste as a neutral or even favourable option, without clearly outlining the environmental and health risks. 'Incinerators lock cities into decades of burning garbage — garbage that should have been reduced, reused or composted. They undermine the city's goal of zero waste.' Facilities like the Emerald plant in Brampton, she said, would need to burn hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually for decades, regardless of improvements in recycling or waste reduction. Instead of investing in incineration, Alfred believes Toronto should focus on improving organics and recycling programs, particularly in high-rise buildings where access to green bins is often limited. The Zero Waste International Alliance also opposes energy-from-waste , calling it incompatible with circular economy principles. Health experts have voiced similar concerns. The Peel region's medical officer of health warned that expanding the Brampton facility could push pollution beyond safe limits for local communities. The World Health Organization has linked uncontrolled incineration—facilities without proper emission controls—to cancer-causing dioxins and respiratory harm. Lyng says Emerald's operations meet strict environmental standards, with real-time emissions monitoring and annual third-party testing. Health impact studies commissioned by the company found no added risk to the surrounding area, he added. Calvin Lakhan, a professor and co-investigator of the Waste Wiki project at York University, says waste-to-energy incineration has historically been viewed negatively in Canada, largely due to its legacy as a dirty, inefficient and costly technology. In Ontario, it isn't even recognized as waste diversion. But modern systems used in Europe and Japan have changed that perception, and are widely used in dense urban centres. If Toronto moves forward with the idea, Lakhan believes it would likely involve best-in-class technology modelled on international examples. Still, he acknowledged concerns that incineration undermines zero-waste goals by destroying, rather than recovering, materials. While not ideal, he argued the city may need to consider all available tools, including advanced incineration, to address its landfill crisis. He urged the province to help municipalities pilot reuse and repair programs, such as textile repair fairs, which offer affordable, community-based ways to cut waste. Many cities, he said, lack the resources to launch such initiatives on their own. Lakhan called for more consistent provincial policy. Recent shifts — like weakening Blue Box targets and delaying organics bans — have left cities unsure of how to proceed. Clear goals and stable rules, he said, are key to long-term progress. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
11-06-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Toronto eyes burning trash as landfill capacity nears limit
With its primary landfill nearing capacity, Toronto is asking residents to consider a range of future waste disposal options, including at least one controversial idea — burning thousands of tonnes of garbage every week. The idea is raising alarms among environmental advocates, who warn that burning trash releases harmful pollutants and poses health risks to nearby communities. To gather public feedback on various disposal solutions, the city is currently running a 10-minute online survey about how waste should be managed in years ahead. Options include expanding landfill capacity, exporting waste to other municipalities or incinerating it to generate electricity — a process known as 'energy-from-waste,' already used in Brampton and Durham Region, and under consideration in Ottawa. Charlotte Ueta, acting director of policy, planning and outreach for Toronto Solid Waste Management Services, says it's too early to commit to any specific plan, and no incineration facility or technology is currently under consideration. However, she acknowledges the situation is urgent, as Canada's largest city still sends an average of 450,000 tonnes of waste annually — more than three CN Towers' worth — to its primary disposal site, the Green Lane Landfill. Ueta says the focus of its ongoing consultation is on waste reduction, reuse and diversion. Toronto has no available land for a new landfill, and provincial policies limit the city's ability to expand or build one elsewhere, she added. However, the survey did ask residents about the option of building an incineration facility within the city. 'That's why we're asking the public about all potential options, including energy-from-waste,' she said. With its primary landfill nearing capacity, Toronto is asking residents to consider a range of future waste disposal options, including at least one controversial idea — burning thousands of tonnes of garbage every week. The incineration pitch Joseph Lyng, general manager of Brampton-based Emerald Energy From Waste (EFW), says his company has submitted an unsolicited proposal to Toronto to process up to 500,000 tonnes of its garbage annually. The facility already burns about 150,000 tonnes of municipal and commercial waste, generating electricity and heat. Lyng says the plant is expanding to handle up to 900,000 tonnes and produce more than 100 megawatts of energy. Toronto's looming garbage crisis is part of a larger problem across Ontario, where landfill capacity is projected to run out by 2034. Roughly one third of the province's waste is exported to the US, a strategy many say is unsustainable amid rising trade tensions. Recent changes to Blue Box recycling rules and the scrapping of a deposit-return system for non-alcoholic drink containers have further strained diversion efforts. Meanwhile, resistance to new landfills is growing. Under Bill 197, municipalities can block new sites within 3.5 kilometres of their boundaries, making it harder for Toronto to find alternatives. Lyng believes his company offers part of the solution. 'We don't produce the garbage — we manage it,' he said. Lyng argues that by processing waste close to where it's generated, facilities like Emerald's avoid shifting the environmental burden onto unwilling communities. Environmental concerns grow Environmental groups have long opposed incineration, citing toxic emissions and long-term environmental and health risks. Emily Alfred of the Toronto Environmental Alliance said she's disappointed by the direction of the city's current consultation. While Toronto has long promoted a zero-waste goal and a circular economy, she says the framing of the survey places too much focus on whether to choose landfill or incineration — and not enough on how to meaningfully reduce waste in the first place. Alfred criticized the city's survey design, saying some questions appear biased or confusing, particularly those suggesting incineration could occur in the city. She argues that this frames burning waste as a neutral or even favourable option, without clearly outlining the environmental and health risks. 'Incinerators lock cities into decades of burning garbage — garbage that should have been reduced, reused or composted. They undermine the city's goal of zero waste.' Facilities like the Emerald plant in Brampton, she said, would need to burn hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually for decades, regardless of improvements in recycling or waste reduction. Instead of investing in incineration, Alfred believes Toronto should focus on improving organics and recycling programs, particularly in high-rise buildings where access to green bins is often limited. The Zero Waste International Alliance also opposes energy-from-waste, calling it incompatible with circular economy principles. Health experts have voiced similar concerns. The Peel region's medical officer of health warned that expanding the Brampton facility could push pollution beyond safe limits for local communities. The World Health Organization has linked uncontrolled incineration—facilities without proper emission controls—to cancer-causing dioxins and respiratory harm. Lyng says Emerald's operations meet strict environmental standards, with real-time emissions monitoring and annual third-party testing. Health impact studies commissioned by the company found no added risk to the surrounding area, he added. Waste-to-energy: A risky fix for a growing problem Calvin Lakhan, a professor and co-investigator of the Waste Wiki project at York University, says waste-to-energy incineration has historically been viewed negatively in Canada, largely due to its legacy as a dirty, inefficient and costly technology. In Ontario, it isn't even recognized as waste diversion. But modern systems used in Europe and Japan have changed that perception, and are widely used in dense urban centres. If Toronto moves forward with the idea, Lakhan believes it would likely involve best-in-class technology modelled on international examples. Still, he acknowledged concerns that incineration undermines zero-waste goals by destroying, rather than recovering, materials. While not ideal, he argued the city may need to consider all available tools, including advanced incineration, to address its landfill crisis. He urged the province to help municipalities pilot reuse and repair programs, such as textile repair fairs, which offer affordable, community-based ways to cut waste. Many cities, he said, lack the resources to launch such initiatives on their own. Lakhan called for more consistent provincial policy. Recent shifts — like weakening Blue Box targets and delaying organics bans — have left cities unsure of how to proceed. Clear goals and stable rules, he said, are key to long-term progress.
