Green Provincial Report Card 2012 by Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Industry Association

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

2012 Green Provinces Report Based on the Corporate Knights 2012 Green Provinces Ranking

Erin Marchington With Contributions from Katie Howard Published by Corporate Knights Magazine, Summer 2012

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................2 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................3 1.1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................3 1.2 2012 GREEN PROVINCES RESEARCH AIM AND AUDIENCE .................................................................................3 1.3 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT........................................................................................................................................3 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................4 2.1 METHOD DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................4 2.2 2012 GREEN PROVINCES METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................4 2.2.1 Data collection.......................................................................................................................................................5 2.2.2 Data analysis........................................................................................................................................................5 2.2.3 Methodology and analysis challenges.......................................................................................................................6 3 RANKING RESULTS AND ANALYSIS..............................................................................................8 3.1 CATEGORY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................9 3.1.1 Overall trends........................................................................................................................................................9 3.1.2 Air and Climate ...................................................................................................................................................9 3.1.3 Water .................................................................................................................................................................12 3.1.4 Nature................................................................................................................................................................14 3.1.5 Transportation ....................................................................................................................................................16 3.1.6 Waste .................................................................................................................................................................18 3.1.7 Energy and Buildings ..........................................................................................................................................19 3.1.8 Innovation ...........................................................................................................................................................20 4 PROVINCE AND TERRITORY PROFILES....................................................................................22 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14

ONTARIO, A-............................................................................................................................................................22 BRITISH COLUMBIA, A-...........................................................................................................................................23 PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, B+ ..............................................................................................................................25 YUKON TERRITORY, B ...........................................................................................................................................26 QUEBEC, B................................................................................................................................................................28 NUNAVUT, B- ...........................................................................................................................................................29 NOVA SCOTIA, B- ....................................................................................................................................................31 NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, B-..............................................................................................................................32 NEWFOUNDLAND, C+ ...........................................................................................................................................33 NEW BRUNSWICK, C+............................................................................................................................................35 MANITOBA, C+ .......................................................................................................................................................36 ALBERTA, C ..............................................................................................................................................................38 SASKATCHEWAN, C.................................................................................................................................................39 THE IDEAL PROVINCE, EXCELLENT ....................................................................................................................41

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

5 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................42 6 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................43

Executive Summary The 2012 Green Provinces ranking used an updated series of 35 measurable indicators organized into seven categories to evaluate the environmental performance of each province and territory in Canada. The seven categories included air and climate, water, nature, transportation, waste, energy and buildings, and innovation. Overall, over half of the provinces and territories scored a B-‐ (50 %) and above, with all provinces achieving a score equal to or greater than a C (44 %). It is evident that overall scores are low for all provinces and territories because no one province/territory excels in every category. Some provinces and territories achieved highest or second highest scores in one category, but lowest scores in other categories (Yukon, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, and Alberta). Ontario and British Colombia come out on top of the ranking because they achieve highest or second highest scores in multiple categories, and no extremely low scores. 2012 Green Provinces and territories ranking, final score and letter grade Final score

Letter grade

6.06

A-

6.00

A-

5.9

B+

5.6

5.5

5.3 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.5 4.4

BBBC+ C+ C+ C C

NS NT NL NB MB AB SK

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

1 Introduction 1.1 Background and context Corporate Knights (CK) magazine, the magazine for clean capitalism, was established in 2002 with the objective of increasing dialogue on sustainability in the business world and highlighting best practices from the field. Recently, the magazine has expanded its scope to many realms, including sustainability and environmental rankings of business, cities, and provinces. Two CK Green Provinces Reports were published in 2009 and 2010 (http://www.corporateknights.com/greenprovinces). The objective of both reports was to show which provinces were doing ‘best’ relative to other provinces and territories in Canada based on a series of environmental and green infrastructure indicators. In the 2010 Green Provinces report, 32 indicators were organized into 10 categories. Indicators were selected based on prioritizing indices that could (1) illuminate aspects of provincial commitment to the environment, (2) indicate where tangible progress in green infrastructure and environmental improvement/protection has occurred, (3) touch upon the relationship between environment and human health, and (4) identify the variation in individual environmental activities and commitment across the country. Many of the indicators selected by CK were also used by the Conference Board of Canada to evaluate Canada’s overall environmental progress compared to OECD countries. The outcome of the report was a letter grade for each province based on aggregation of indicator and category scores.

1.2 2012 Green Provinces research aim and audience The 2012 Green Provinces ranking used an updated series of 35 measurable indicators organized into seven categories to evaluate the environmental performance of each province and territory of Canada. The seven categories include: air and climate, water, nature, transportation, waste, energy and buildings, and innovation. The 2012 ranking was developed under the assumption that limited changes to indicators and categories will be made in future Green Provinces ranking to allow for year-‐to-‐year comparison of results. Some key people should read the 2012 Green Provinces ranking and report. They are meant as tools for provincial governments and officials to see where they lie in comparison to others in Canada. This way, they can track their progress from year to year, modify or implement changes accordingly, and share information, like best practices. By highlighting leading provinces for each category and indicators, we hope over time to see a shift by provinces towards improved environmental performance. We also hope that citizens, NGOs, and other public interest groups follow the Green Provinces rankings and reports so that they can be informed as to how where their province is excelling, where improvement is needed, and what their role can be in changing this.

1.3 Outline of the report To 2012 Green Provinces Ranking report is presented in the following manner. First, research methods used to conduct the ranking are presented, including detailed 3

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

information on data collection, analysis, and method challenges and limitations. This is followed by the ranking results and analysis, presented for each category and indicators, including best practices. Province-‐specific results by category, indicator, and best and worst areas are identified in the Province and Territory Profiles section of this report. The report concludes with a summary of results and ways forward.

2 Research methodology The Green Provinces ranking used a series of measurable indicators to evaluate the environmental performance of each province and territory of Canada. Indicators are grouped together by theme, herein referred to as categories. Indicators for each province/territory are assigned a score from 0 – 10, aggregated scores are created for each category for each province/territory, and a final overall score for each province/territory is created by aggregating category scores. Details of category and indicator selection and the aggregation processes are described below and Table C summarizes the methodology strategy.

2.1 Method development In preparation for the 2012 Green Provinces report and ranking, previous CK Green Provinces methodology was reviewed. In light of the development of the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) (http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-‐ indicators/default.asp?lang=En) to measure the progress of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, it was decided that the CK Green Provinces methodology should be streamlined to incorporate these indicators, which will be updated frequently and reliably via Environment Canada research. As a starting point, CESIs were screened for provincial data availability and relevancy; 2010 CK Green Provinces indicators replaced those CESIs for which only national data was available. The CESIs indicator set covers three main areas, Air & Climate, Water, and Nature. CK wanted to additionally investigate the impacts of transportation, waste, and energy on these areas and the environment, so indicators for these three categories were carried over from the 2010 Green Provinces ranking. A few new indicators to shed light on green innovation were added and the ‘building’ category from the 2010 Green Provinces ranking was integrated into the Energy category. All indicators were screened for most up-‐to-‐date data sources. A panel of experts, including representatives from York University, David Suzuki Foundation, and The Pembina Institute, reviewed the resulting list of indicators and categories.

2.2 2012 Green Provinces methodology The result of the above method development is a list of 7 categories (air and climate, water, nature, transportation, waste, energy and buildings, and innovation) and 35 indicators that analyze the environmental performance of each province and territory (Table C). Sub-‐category themes, category weightings, and indicator unit of measure, weighting, adjustment, normalization scale (value set at score of 5/0/10), date, source, and link to data are detailed. Raw data and calculations are found in Tables A and B and descriptions of these tables are under Section 3, Results.

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

2.2.1 Data collection Data for all indicators was screened for the most up-‐to-‐date sources and an effort was made to use publically available, government-‐sourced data to ensure consistency and reliability; 32 of 35 indicators are sourced from federal government agencies and available free of charge, online. Almost all data ages range from 2008 – 2011; due to delay in data processing and reporting in government agencies, the most up-‐to-‐date data is typically not from the current year, but is the most recent available. The only exception to this data age range is that used to measure ‘total forested land’ as a part of the % forestland under FSC-‐certified management indicator (most available data from Global Forest Watch, Canada's forests at a Crossroads report (2000)). If data for an indicator was not available, it was labeled as ‘n/a’ and this indicator was not included in the category and/or final score calculations; weightings were adjusted to accommodate for this.

2.2.2 Data analysis Using this data, a ranking was calculated by creating aggregate scores for groups of indicators (categories) and then a final score based on aggregating category scores. The final score was assigned a letter grade, while the results for each category are presented as a numerical list of first to thirteenth province (‘number rank’). 2.2.2.1 Data normalization Data for each indicator was first adjusted to create a ‘raw score’. Data was typically adjusted by provincial/territory GDP or population, unless it was collected as a pre-‐ adjusted value (i.e. light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita) or it was deemed to not require adjustment. For example, the protected areas by province/territory indicator was not adjusted by GDP or population because the indicator is not affected by these factors. When indicator data was adjusted by GDP, the GDP values used correspond to the date of the data; for example, Sulfur oxide emission indicator kt values were for the 2009 year, so GDP values from 2009 were used to create the raw score. When indicator data was adjusted by population, 2011 census population numbers were used because the census population numbers prior to this were from 2006. For two indicators in the water category (water quantity, quality) and two in the nature category (ecological integrity, status of species) cumulative weighted scores were created using raw data, details of which can be found in the results section under the specific indicator. The adjustment for each indicator is detailed in Table C under the ‘adjustment’ column. Using the ‘raw score’ a normalized value (a value of 0 -‐ 10) was assigned to each indicator for each province. Normalization calculations are designed to rationally create 0-‐10 values for raw scores using a simple equation. In most cases, the national average for the indicator was set at a score of 5 and an ‘ideal’ value (10) was either twice the national average or 0 depending on the indicator and whether a larger raw score was more or less desirable. Table C shows for each indicator what raw score value was set at a score of 5, 0, and 10 (ideal). If an indicator normalized value was found to be >10, it was rounded to 10; if a normalized value was found to be < 0, it is rounded to 0. 5

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

The normalized values for each indicator in a category were weighted to create a category score (Table C, ‘indicator weight’ column). For each category provinces were also given a ‘number rank’, the place from 1  13 they fell in order of category scores. Scores for each province for each category were weighted to create a final score (Table C, ‘category weight’ column). The results for the final score were translated into a letter grade according to the scheme below. Letter scheme Score

Grade

> 7.0

Excellent

6.7-6.9

A+

6.4-6.6

6.0-6.3

A-

5.7-5.9

B+

5.4-5.6

5.0-5.3

B-

4.7-4.9

C+

4.4-4.6

4.0-4.3

C-

< 4.0

2.2.3 Methodology and analysis challenges Quantification of “environmental performance” for provinces/territories is challenging and requires the paring down of a broad term to definable categories (i.e. air and climate, water, nature, transportation, waste, energy and buildings, and innovation), which need to be defined by measurable quantities (indicators). In our methodology, Corporate Knights has proposed a logical way of doing this; however it should be noted that this is one method of analysis and that others are possible. There is flexibility in how “environmental performance” can be defined, which indicators should be included or excluded, and how data is normalized. Data availability and the age of data available were the primary drivers for indicator selection in our ranking, and are limiting factors for any type of research based on indicator analysis. That said there are many benefits to producing a ranking in this manner. Quantifying the concept of environmental performance puts an broad concept into more concrete terms, which then allows one to track progress numerically over time. Numerical ranking also allows for direct comparison between things, such as provinces/territories, which is useful for benchmarking and evaluating environmental performance home and abroad. 2.2.3.1 Data notes and exceptions For some indicators, data for the territories was presented in sources as a “territory” value; if this occurred, the same value was assigned to each territory prior to raw score calculations. This affected the following indicators: % change in GHG emissions since 1990 (% change same for Nunavut and Northwest Territories, Yukon had separate data); GHG emissions, t/capita; GHG efficiency, $B GDP/Mt GHG; Municipal wastewater treatment; Average daily water use (residential and total); and, Energy use, final demand. More often for the territories than the provinces data was not

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

available for some indicators; territory profiles should be consulted while interpreting results (‘n/a’ label is noted for indicators when data was not available). Notes on specific indicator data: • % new housing starts that are green certified homes o The number of green new housing starts was combined for PEI and NB; the total new housing starts for each province was added and the resulting percentage was used for both provinces. For the three territories, the number of new green housing starts data was available, but the total new housing starts data from Statistics Canada was not available. Since Nu and NT had 0 green housing starts, they were given a score of 0 for this category, assuming some new housing developments occurred. Since YT had some green housing starts, it was not possible to find the % of new starts that were green ('n/a') label. Quebec uses an alternative green housing label and standard system and attempts were made to acquire data, but there was no response from contacted parties. • Waste disposal and waste diversion o There was no data for the 3 territories and PEI for both Waste category indicators, so interpret the category ranking with caution. For these territories/province, the final score calculation used the following weightings of categories (not that found in Table C, methodology): Air & Climate (0.1833), Water (0.1833), Nature (0.1833), Transportation (0.1833), Energy & Buildings (0.1833), and Innovation (0.0833). • Total Cleantech companies per capita o There was no data for one of two indicators in the Innovation category for the 3 territories. This resulted in a low category score for these territories because the outcome was determined only by the venture capital investment indicator (weighted 1.0 in category score calculation). Province abbreviations: YT

Yukon

Ontario

Quebec

Prince Edward Island

Nunavut

Northwest Territories British Columbia Manitoba Newfoundland Nova Scotia New Brunswick Alberta Saskatchewan

BC MB NL NS NB AB SK

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

3 Ranking results and analysis Results and analysis are presented in sequence for each of the 7 categories used to evaluate the environmental performance of the provinces/territories (air and climate, water, nature, transportation, waste, energy and buildings, and innovation) with discussion of indicator results within each category. Please refer to Table A and Table B for raw data and calculations and Table C for methodology and indicator definitions. Table A presents normalized data (0 – 10 value) for each province/territory for each indicator, summarized by category; average indicator values, the category weighting scheme, category score, and number rank for the category are detailed. The ‘Category summary’ tab shows the number rank for each of the categories. The ‘Final rank summary’ tab shows the provincial score for all categories and calculation of the final ranking score, weighting scheme, and letter grade conversion. The ‘Ideal province’ tab shows the final score calculation for a fictional province/territory that achieves the top score for every indicator. Table B presents raw data for each province and indicator in the ‘Raw data’ tab. Each category tab shows calculations for indicators within that category; the data source, link, adjusted data value (‘raw score’), and normalization calculation to produce a rounded normalized score (‘normalized rounded’) are presented for each indicator. The highest and lowest raw scores are highlighted along with what raw score is set at a score of 5 (often the national average), and what raw score is needed to produce a normalized score of 0, 10 (ideal score), and 1. Whether a higher or lower raw score is rewarded with a ‘better’ (higher) score out of 10 in the normalization calculation is also indicated. Table 1 (below) shows the final ranking score calculated from these data sets and trends discussed below are based on these sets of data. While interpreting results, ensure to consider the ‘data notes and exceptions’ described in Section 2 of this report. Table 1. 2012 Green Provinces and territories ranking, final score and letter grade Final score

Letter grade

Letter scheme

6.06

A-

Score

Grade

6.00

A-

Excellent

5.9

B+

6.7-7.0

A+

5.6

6.4-6.6

5.5

6.0-6.3

A-

5.3 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.5 4.4

BBBC+ C+ C+ C C

5.7-5.9 5.4-5.6 5.0-5.3 4.7-4.9 4.4-4.6 4.0-4.3 < 4.0

B+ B BC+ C CD

NS NT NL NB MB AB SK

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

3.1 Category results and analysis 3.1.1 Overall trends As shown in Table 1, overall over half of the provinces and territories score a B-‐ (50 %) and above, with all provinces achieving a score equal to or greater than a C (44 %). It is evident that overall scores are low for all provinces and territories because no one province excels in every category. Some provinces and territories achieve highest or second highest scores in one category, but lowest scores in other categories (Yukon, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, and Alberta). Ontario and British Colombia come out on top of the ranking because they achieve highest or second highest scores in multiple categories, and no extremely low scores. Provinces and territories scored highest in Water with an average score of 67 % (A+); over a third of the provinces and territories scored above 73 % in this category. Provinces and territories also scored high in Nature with an average score of (57 % (B+); 10 of the 13 provinces and territories scored above 50 % in this category. Provinces and territories score lowest in Innovation with an average score of 31 % (D); 10 of the 13 provinces and territories in the ranking scored below 50 % in this category. Poor performance was also noted in Energy and Buildings average province/territory score of 46 % (C); over half of the provinces and territories in the ranking scored below 50 % in this category.

3.1.2 Air and Climate Top province/territory, Air and Climate: Yukon, 87 % Yukon territory scored the top spot in the Air and Climate category with scores of 100% in 4 of the 9 indicators. Most notably, Yukon’s % change in GHG emissions since 1990 was cited at -‐41.3 % (2009), greatly below the Kyoto target of – 6 % for 2012. A perfect score for the Sulphur oxide emissions and Nitrogen oxide emissions indicator means that the Yukon’s $B GDP/kt values in 2009 were twice the national average and Yukon’s hexavalent chromium emissions were 0 tonnes in 2009. Of the 9 indicators, Hexavalent chromium emissions (77 %) and Sulfur oxide emissions (63 %) indicators had the highest average province/territory score. The indicator with the lowest average province/territory score was % change in GHG emissions since 1990 (34 %). Air & Climate YT ON PE NT NU QB BC NL MB NB NS SK

Score 8.7 8.3 7.1 6.9 6.8 6.7 5.6 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.2 2.5

Number rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

1.9

3.1.2.1 Air pollutants 3.1.2.1.1 Sulphur oxide emissions

Top province/territory: Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, PEI, Ontario, British Colombia, 100 % Average score: 63 % Almost half of the province and territories scored 100 % for this indicator, meaning that many were exceeding twice the national average $B GDP/kt efficiency values (0.868 $B GDP/kt). A wide range of values was observed (11.07 – 0. 15 $B GDP/kt), where five provinces/territories had $B GDP/kt values greater than 2.0 $B GDP/kt (the three Territories, PEI, and Ontario). The three Territories and PEI had the lowest direct sulphur oxide emissions (< 1.5 kt for 2009), while Alberta and Manitoba had the highest emission values in 2009 at 373.9 kt and 289.9 kt, respectively. Despite their relatively high emissions, Ontario (213.2 kt) and British Colombia (91.6 kt) scored 100 % due to high efficiency in terms of GDP output. 3.1.2.1.2 Nitrogen oxide emissions

Top province/territory: Ontario, Yukon Territory, 100 % Average score: 49 % Ontario (1.31 $B GDP/kt) and the Yukon (1.30 $B GDP/kt) tied for first place in this indicator scoring 100 %, meaning that they exceeded twice the national average $B GDP/kt efficiency values (0.634 $B GDP/kt). A small range of values was observed (1.31 – 0. 24 $B GDP/kt). The Yukon had the lowest direct nitrogen oxide emissions (1.3 kt for 2009), while Alberta and Ontario had the highest emission values in 2009 at 732.7 kt and 390.7 kt, respectively. Ontario scored 100 % due to high efficiency in terms of GDP output. 3.1.2.1.3 Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions

Top province/territory: Ontario, 84 % Average score: 47 % Ontario (1.24 $B GDP/kt) placed first in this indicator scoring 100 %, meaning that it exceeded twice the national average $B GDP/kt efficiency values (0.739 $B GDP/kt). A small range of values was observed (1.24 – 0. 22 $B GDP/kt). Nunavut had the lowest direct VOC emissions (1.5 kt for 2009), while Ontario and Alberta had the highest emission values in 2009 at 413.10 kt and 385.6 kt, respectively. Ontario scored 100 % due to high efficiency in terms of GDP output. 3.1.2.1.4 PM < 2.5 emissions

Top province/territory: Yukon Territory, 85 % Average score: 44 % The Yukon (8.46 $B GDP/kt) placed first in this indicator scoring 100 %, meaning that it exceeded twice the national average $B GDP/kt efficiency values (5.001 $B GDP/kt). A wide range of values was observed (8.46 – 1.85 $B GDP/kt), where 3 provinces/territories had $B GDP/kt values greater than 5.0 $B GDP/kt (Yukon, Ontario, Alberta). The Yukon had the lowest direct PM < 2.5 emissions (0.2 kt for 2009), while Quebec and Ontario had the highest emission values in 2009 at 74.5 kt and 62.50 kt, respectively. 10

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

3.1.2.2 GHG emissions 3.1.2.2.1 % change in GHG emissions since 1990

Top province/territory: Ontario, Yukon Territory, 100 % Average score: 34 % Only two provinces/territories exceeded the Kyoto target for -‐6 % reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels, the Yukon at -‐41.3 % and Ontario at -‐6.5 %. In addition, PEI and Quebec were the only other provinces to achieve a decrease in emissions relative to 1990 levels, with the 9 other provinces seeing an increase in their emissions. Saskatchewan and Alberta had the largest increase, with 69 % and 36.7 % change in GHG emissions (2009) since 1990. 3.1.2.2.2 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita

Top province/territory: Quebec, 79 % Average score: 56 % Quebec (10.40 t/capita) placed first in this indicator scoring 79 %, where 0 t/capita GHG emissions was set at 100 %. A relatively large range of values was observed, with Saskatchewan and Alberta emitting 71 t/capita and 63.6 t/capita on the high end and Quebec and Ontario (12.60 t/capita) on the low end. 9 of the 13 provinces and territories emitted < 20.0 t/capita and 11 of the 13 provinces and territories emitted < 25 t/capita. 3.1.2.2.3 GHG efficiency

Top province/territory: Quebec, 74 % Average score: 50 % Quebec (3.28 $B GDP/Mt GHG) placed first in this indicator scoring 74 %, where twice the national average $B GDP/kt efficiency value was set at 100 % (2.203 $B GDP/Mt GHG). A moderate range of values was observed (3.28 – 0. 54 $B GDP/Mt GHG). Saskatchewan and Alberta had the lowest $B GDP/Mt GHG values at 0.54 and 0.76, respectively. Five of the thirteen provinces/territories achieved $B GDP/Mt GHG values > 3.0 $B GDP/Mt GHG (Quebec, the three Territories, and Ontario). 3.1.2.3 Toxic substances 3.1.2.3.1 Mercury emissions

Top province/territory: Yukon Territory, 90 % Average score: 49 % The Yukon (0.0009 t/$B GDP) placed first in this indicator scoring 90 %, where 0 t/$B GDP was set at 100 %. A wide range of values was observed (0.0291 – 0.0009 t/$B GDP), where 11 of 13 provinces/territories emitted < 0.01 t/$B GDP. Saskatchewan and Manitoba had the highest t/$B GDP values at 0.029 and 0.017, respectively. Ontario 3.1.2.3.2 Hexavalent chromium emissions

Top province/territory: Manitoba, PEI, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, Nunavut, 100 % Average score: 77 % Over half of the province and territories scored 100 % for this indicator, where 0 t/$B GDP was set at 100 %. This likely indicates that chromium emissions are connected to a specific industry emission type that is only present in specific provinces. A small 11

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

range of values was observed for direct chromium emissions, 0.01 kt (New Brunswick) – 0.54 kt (Alberta) (2009). Despite their relatively high emissions, Quebec (0.24 kt) and Ontario (0.23 kt) still scored over 50 % due to high efficiency in terms of GDP output.

3.1.3 Water Top province/territory, Water: Northwest Territories, 80 % Northwest Territories scored the top spot in the Water category with scores of 100 % in half of the category indicators, water quantity and toxic substances released into water (mercury, lead, and cadmium). A perfect score for the toxic substances indicator was achieved via very small amounts or 0 kg of toxics released into water during 2009. Perhaps unsurprising for a sparsely populated northern province/territory, all monitored stations in NWT were observed to have normal or high water quantity in 2009. However, most impressive was that NWT scored highest in the total water use indicator (0.342 $M GDP/L), where most provinces/territories did not score well, indicating high efficiency in terms of GDP output. Of the 8 indicators, the Water quantity indicator had the highest average province/territory score (94 %). The indicators with the lowest average province/territory score were Water use, total and residential (50 %). Water NT MB SK PE NS AB NB NL NU ON YT BC QB

Score 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.3 6.8 6.7 6.4 6.3 6.2 5.9 4.9 4.7

Number rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

3.1.3.1 Water quantity Top province/territory: Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, PEI, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, 100 % Average score: 94 % Perhaps unsurprising for a country with an abundance of fresh water and large landmass, over half of the provinces/territories scored 100 % for this indicator, meaning that all monitored stations in the province/territory were observed to have normal or high water quantity during 2009. Notable exceptions would be Alberta and British Colombia, where 77 % and 75 % of stations monitored were normal or high; 63 of 274 stations in Alberta and 69 of 280 stations monitored in BC were found to have low water quantity. 3.1.3.2 Water quality

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Top province/territory: New Brunswick, 77 % Average score: 61 % This indicator analyzed the status of freshwater quality at monitoring stations in selected drainage regions across Canada; each station was assigned a Water Quality Index (WQI) by Environment Canada (poor, marginal, fair, good, excellent) for the 2006 -‐ 2008 time period. To achieve 100 %, provinces/territories were required to have all monitored stations assigned a WQI label of ‘excellent’. Provinces/territories’ cumulative score was created using the following weightings applied to labeled stations: poor (0), marginal (25), fair (50), good (75), and excellent (100). All provinces except Quebec (38.7 %) achieved a cumulative water quality score above 50 %, meaning that Quebec has a greater proportion of stations with poor (4/30) or marginal (10/30) water quality and fewer stations with excellent (0/30) water quality than other provinces/territories. New Brunswick ranked first in this indicator with a score of 77 %, with 0 of 57 stations monitored labeled poor or marginal. 3.1.3.3 Pressures on water quality 3.1.3.3.1 Municipal wastewater treatment

Top province/territory: PEI, 100 % Average score: 62 % PEI was the only province/territory to have 100 % of its population served by secondary wastewater treatment or better. A cluster of 5 provinces (PEI, Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan) have > 90 % of their population served by secondary wastewater treatment or better, while the other 7 provinces/territories score below 59 %. Newfoundland ranked lowest in this indicator, with only 7.9 % of its population served by secondary wastewater treatment or better. Note: Data for this indicator for the three territories was given as one joint value, 40.6 %; therefore, 40.6 % was assigned to each of the territories, but true % values may vary slightly from this. 3.1.3.3.2 Toxic substances released into water: Mercury

Top province/territory: Newfoundland, PEI, Northwest Territories, 100 % Average score: 66 % Newfoundland, PEI, and Northwest Territories released 0 kg of mercury in 2009, ranking highest in this indicator. A relatively large range of values was observed, with Alberta and Ontario releasing 149.0 kg and 87.0 kg of mercury, respectively, accounting for over two thirds of Canada’s total emissions in 2009. 3.1.3.3.3 Toxic substances released into water: Lead

Top province/territory: Nova Scotia, Northwest Territories, PEI, 100 % Average score: 66 % PEI released 0 kg of lead in 2009, while the Northwest Territories (0.55 kg) and Nova Scotia (11 kg) released very small amounts. A huge range of values was observed, with Ontario (6842.0 kg), British Colombia (3701.0 kg), and Quebec (3489.0 kg) ranking last as the largest emitters, accounting for approximately 87 % of Canada’s total emissions in 2009. 3.1.3.3.4 Toxic substances released into water: Cadmium

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Top province/territory: Northwest Territories, PEI, 100 % Average score: 59 % PEI and Northwest Territories released 0 kg of cadmium in 2009. A large range of values was observed, with Quebec (760 kg), British Colombia (752 kg), and Ontario (715 kg) ranking last as the top emitters, accounting for over two thirds of Canada’s total release of cadmium in 2009. 3.1.3.4 Pressures on water quantity 3.1.3.4.1 Water use, total

Top province/territory: Northwest Territories, 83 % Average score: 50 % Almost half of the province and territories scored > 50 % for this indicator, meaning that many were exceeding the national average $M GDP/L efficiency values for total water use (0.205 $M GDP/L). A small range of values was observed (0.34 – 0. 10 $M GDP/L). Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario had the lowest direct L/capita/day total water use (< 409 L/capita/day for 2009), while New Brunswick and Newfoundland had the highest total water use (< 800 L/capita/day for 2009) and also the lowest efficiency and ranking. Although Northwest Territories had a higher than average direct total water use (599 L/capita/day for 2009), they achieved a top ranking for this indicator due to high efficiency in terms of GDP output. 3.1.3.4.2 Water use, residential

Top province/territory: Prince Edward Island, 70 % Average score: 50 % A relatively small range of values for residential water use (L/capita/day, 2009) was observed, with Prince Edward Island ranking first (189 L/capita/day) and Newfoundland ranking last (395 L/capita/day). Although similar trends were observed with residential water use as in total water use for the provinces/territories, the Northwest Territories scored relatively low due to higher than average residential water use (391 L/capita/day) and PEI ranked first.

3.1.4 Nature Top province/territory, Nature: Yukon (82 %) and Alberta (81 %) The Yukon and Alberta were the only province/territory to score above 63 % in the Nature category, a result of performing uniformly well in all indicators with each ranking first in two indicators. The Yukon ranked first in the Ecological integrity of national parks, with a cumulative score of 83.3 %; of rated ecosystems in national parks within provincial boundaries, none were found to be ‘poor’. The Yukon also achieved greater than 1 visit per person (territory population) to their national parks in the 2010 – 2011 season, resulting in a score of 100 % for the Parks Canada visitation indicator. Similarly, Alberta achieved top scores in Parks Canada visitation, but also in the % forestland under FSC-‐certified management indicator (34 % FSC-‐ certified). Of the 5 indicators, the Status of species indicator had the highest average province/territory score (84 %). The indicators with the lowest average province/territory scores were Protected area (44 %) and % forestland FSC certified (43 %). 14

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Nature YT

Score

Number rank

8.2

8.1

6.3

6.2

5.9

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.3

4.9

4.5

4.4

4.0

3.1.4.1 Habitat protection 3.1.4.1.1 Protected areas by province/territory

Top province/territory: British Colombia, 73 % Average score: 44 % This indicator had the lowest average score for the Nature category, as only three provinces/territories in Canada have greater than 10 % of their land protected. British Colombia is a clear leader (14.4 %), followed by Alberta (12.4 %) and the Yukon (11.9 %). With the national average of protected area at 9.8 %, several provinces/territories are lagging behind, most notably the Atlantic provinces of PEI, New Brunswick and Newfoundland (< 5 % protected). 3.1.4.1.2 Ecological integrity of National Parks

Top province/territory: Yukon, 83 % Average score: 69 % Over half of the provinces/territories evaluated scored 70 % or greater for this indicator, meaning that the majority of ecosystems within their National Parks are in ‘fair’ or ‘good’ condition; no provinces/territories scored < 50 %. To achieve 100 %, provinces/territories were required to have all rated ecosystems in nationals parks assigned a ‘good’ ecological integrity rating. Provinces/territories’ cumulative score was created using the following weightings applied to labeled ecosystems: poor (0), fair (50), good (100). The Yukon ranked first with a cumulative score of 83.3 %; of rated ecosystems in national parks within provincial boundaries, none were found to be ‘poor’. 3.1.4.2 Wildlife 3.1.4.2.1 General status of species in Canada

Top province/territory: New Brunswick, 88 % Average score: 84 % As the top average scoring indicator for the Nature category, most provinces/territories performed well; all but one province/territory (Nunavut) scored > 80 % cumulative species status score. To achieve 100 %, 15

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

provinces/territories were required to have all rated species assigned a ‘secure’ rating. Provinces/territories’ cumulative score was created using the following weightings applied to labeled species: secure (100), sensitive (66.7), maybe at risk (33.3), at risk (0). Of the 2571 species evaluated in New Brunswick, 29 species were found to be ‘at risk’ and 274 were ‘maybe at risk’; on the opposite end of the ranking, of the 1179 species evaluated in Nunavut, 5 species were found ‘at risk’ and 223 were ‘maybe at risk’. Caution should be used when interpreting this data because the total number of species evaluated influences result. 3.1.4.3 Biological resources 3.1.4.3.1 % Forestland under FSC-certified management

Top province/territory: Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, 100 % Average score: 43 % Three provinces, Quebec (53.1 %), Ontario (37.5 %), and Alberta (33.6 %) ranked first in this indicator, meaning that they exceeded twice the national average of % forestland under FSC-‐certified management (16.6%). There was a wide range of values observed (0 – 53.1 %), with New Brunswick, Manitoba, PEI and Newfoundland at 0 % certification. 3.1.4.4 National park visitation Top province/territory: PEI, Alberta, Yukon Territory, 100 % Average score: 47 % For the 2010 – 2011 parks season, PEI, Alberta and the Yukon all had greater than 1 visit per capita of provincial/territory population to National Parks within their boundaries. However, the 10 remaining provinces and territories all had < 1 visit/capita, and a wide spread of values were observed, ranging from 0.02 visits/capita (Nunavut) – 0.87 visits/capita (Newfoundland). Less than half of the provinces and territories had > 0.5 visits/capita to National Parks within their boundaries, leading to an overall low average score for this indicator.

3.1.5 Transportation Top province/territory, Transportation: Nunavut, 95 % Nunavut ranked far above all other provinces and territories in this category, scoring 95 % overall. However, it should be noted that as a result of data availability, this final category score is based on the average of two indicators, not four. Still, for both light (940.3 km/capita) and heavy duty (62.7 km/capita) vehicles, the km/capita travelled in Nunavut were far below the national average (light, 9069 km/capita; heavy, 639.8 km/capita). Only British Colombia also managed a score > 90 % for km travelled per capita for heavy duty vehicles (132.9 km/capita). Of the 4 indicators, the Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita, indicator had the highest average province/territory score (53 %) and the indicator with the lowest average province/territory scores was Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita (46 %). Transportation NU

Score

Number rank

9.5

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.1

3.9

3.7

3.3

1.7

3.1.5.1 Road Transportation 3.1.5.1.1 Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

Top province/territory: Nunavut, 95 % Average score: 53 % Only Nunavut (940.3 km/capita) and Northwest Territories (4823.7 km/capita) scored above 60 % for this indicator, meaning that few provinces/territories achieve a lower km/capita value than the national average (9069 km/capita) and most are close to this value. The Yukon ranked lowest for this indicator with an average of 11,800.5 km/capita in 2009. 3.1.5.1.2 Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency (L/100 km)

Top province/territory: Nova Scotia, 59 % Average score: 50 % Although Nova Scotia ranked first for this indicator with average fuel efficiency for light duty vehicles of 9.7 L/100 km in 2009, the range of values observed for the ranked provinces was very narrow (9.7 – 11.6 L/100 km (Saskatchewan)). The national average for fuel efficiency was 10.7 L/100 km. Note that data was not available for the territories. 3.1.5.1.3 Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

Top province/territory: Nunavut, 95 % Average score: 46 % Although Nunavut (62.7 km/capita) ranked first in this indicator, almost half of the provinces and territories achieved lower km/capita values for heavy duty vehicles than the national average (639.8 km/capita) by scoring > 60 %. British Colombia ranked second with an average of 132.9 km/capita (2009) and the Yukon ranked last with an average of 3599.1 km/capita (2009). A wider range of values for heavy duty than light duty vehicles was observed in each province, as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon all scored< 10 %. 3.1.5.1.4 Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency (L/100 km)

Top province/territory: Manitoba, 53 % Average score: 47 % Manitoba ranked first for this indicator with average fuel efficiency for heavy duty vehicles of 32.4 L/100 km in 2009, and the range of values observed for the ranked 17

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

provinces was wider than that found for light duty vehicles (32.4 – 39.1 L/100 km (PEI)). It is interesting that PEI ranks much lower for this indicator than the fuel efficiency for light duty vehicles. The national average for fuel efficiency was 33.4 L/100 km. Note that data was not available for the territories.

3.1.6 Waste Top province/territory, Waste: Nova Scotia, 71 % Nova Scotia came out on top in the Waste Category, with a first place ranking and score of 71 %. Placing first in the Waste disposal indicator, Nova Scotia showed the highest efficiency in terms of $1 M GDP per ton of waste disposed (0.08 $1M GDP/t). Nova Scotia also scored well in the diversion indicator, with 308 kg of material diverted per capita annually (2008), exceeding the national average of 251 kg/capita diversion. There were only two indicators in this category, and the Waste disposal indicator had a marginally higher average province/territory score (52 %) than the Waste diversion indicator (50 %). Note that data for the three Territories and PEI for both indicators was not available, which is why there is no category score for these provinces/territories. Waste NS

Score

Number rank

7.1

6.3

6.0

5.3

4.8

4.7

4.2

3.7

3.5

n/a

3.1.6.1 Waste disposal Top province/territory: Nova Scotia, 81 % Average score: 52 % Although Nova Scotia scored high in this indicator, only a third of provinces analyzed scored above 50 %. Nova Scotia (0.08 $1 M GDP/t), British Colombia (0.06 $1 M GDP/t), and Ontario (0.06 $1 M GDP/t) had greater efficiency in terms of GDP output and waste produced than the national average (0.05 $1 M GDP/t). Manitoba and Quebec (0.04 $1 M GDP/t) ranked last. 3.1.6.2 Waste Diversion Top province/territory: New Brunswick, 71 % Average score: 50 % A large range of values for kg of diverted material per capita annually (2008) were observed, with New Brunswick ranking first (357 kg/capita) and Saskatchewan (145 18

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

kg/capita) and Manitoba (140 kg/capita) ranking last. Nova Scotia, Quebec, British Colombia and New Brunswick all achieved diversion rates greater than 300 kg/capita.

3.1.7 Energy and Buildings Top province/territory, Energy and Buildings: British Columbia (60 %) The Energy and Buildings category had the lowest top scoring province/territory, with British Colombia placing ranking first with a score of 60 %. This indicates that most provinces/territories are struggling in this category and there is no clear front-‐ runner. British Columbia achieved first place, but did not rank highest in any of the indicators. However, BC did score high in a few indicators, most notably % electricity generation from renewables, where 89.03 % of the province’s electricity is generated by hydro, tidal, wind, solar and other renewables. Also, BC had a total of 9820 grant applications for the EcoEnergy home retrofit program (2011 – 2012), or approximately 22 applications per 10,000 people, which was higher than the national average. Of the 5 indicators, the Residential energy use indicator had the highest average province/territory score (59 %). The indicator with the lowest average province/territory scores was % new housing starts that are green certified homes (25 %). Energy & Buildings

Score

Number rank

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.1

4.8

4.7

4.4

3.1

2.9

1.9

3.1.7.1 Energy 3.1.7.1.1 Energy Use, Final Demand, Primary and Secondary

Top province/territory: Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, Nunavut, 71 % Average score: 50 % Only four of the thirteen provinces/territories, the three Territories and Ontario, scored greater than 50 % in this indicator, meaning that they achieved $1M GDP/TJ energy use efficiency value greater than the national average (0.182 $1M GDP/TJ). A relatively wide range of values were observed, 0.09 – 0.26 $1M GDP/TJ, where higher values indicate greater energy use efficiency in terms of GDP output. Alberta and

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Saskatchewan ranked last and also saw a 71.9 % and 55.8 % change in energy use in 2009 relative to 1990 values. 3.1.7.1.2 Total energy use, residential sector

Top province/territory: Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, Nunavut, 84 % Average score: 59 % Although the average score for provinces/territories in this indicator was relatively low, it was the highest of the five indicators in the Energy and Buildings category. Total residential energy use values ranged from 27.97 GJ/capita (the three Territories) to 56.35 GJ/capita (Alberta), with just over half of the provinces/territories using < 40 GJ/capita. 3.1.7.1.3 % Total electricity generation that is renewable

Top province/territory: Manitoba and PEI, 99 % Average score: 55 % Renewable electricity generation for this indicator includes hydro, tidal, wind, solar and other renewables as defined by Statistics Canada. Six provinces/territories achieved a score of > 89 %, meaning they have > 89 % renewable electricity generation: Yukon Territory (93.8 %), Newfoundland (96.9 %), Quebec (97 %), PEI (99.2 %), Manitoba (99.5 %), and British Columbia (89 %). Interestingly, the remaining seven provinces/territories all fall below 40 % renewable electricity generation, with Alberta (5.7 %) and Nunavut (0 %) ranking last. 3.1.7.2 Buildings 3.1.7.2.1 % New housing starts that are green certified homes

Top province/territory: Nova Scotia, 67 % Average score: 25 % Nova Scotia (16.8 %) and Ontario (15.5 %) ranked highest in this indicator, which compared the number of new housing starts that were green certified (EnergySTAR and R2000) to the total number of housing starts in 2011. Most provinces and territories had < 7 % green housing starts, so to score 100 % provinces/territories had to achieved 25 % green new housing starts, with the anticipation that this value will increase over the coming years. 3.1.7.2.2 EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program participation

Top province/territory: Saskatchewan, 94 % Average score: 50 % Saskatchewan had a total of 2940 grant applications for the EcoEnergy home retrofit program (2011 – 2012), or approximately 28 applications per 10,000 people, which was highest per capita value for all provinces/territories. Four other provinces (New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia) had > 20 applications per 10, 000 people, and the Yukon ranked last with only 1.5 applications per 10,000 people.

3.1.8 Innovation Top province/territory, Innovation: British Columbia (93 %) British Columbia was the clear leader in this category, achieving very high scores in both the Venture capital investment indicator and Cleantech companies indicator. BC has invested over $138/capita provincial population venture capital in green 20

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

innovation startups between 2002 – 2011; only Ontario comes close to this with an investment of $80.5/capita. With 160 Cleantech companies in total at the end of 2011, BC also has the one of the highest numbers of companies/capita. There were only two indicators in this category, and the Cleantech companies indicator had a higher average province/territory score (54 %) than the Venture capital investment indicator (20 %). Note that data for the three Territories for Cleantech companies not available, which influences the final category score because it is only based on the Venture capital indicator result. Innovation BC

Score

Number rank

9.3

5.2

5.0

4.2

4.1

3.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

1.6

0.0

3.1.8.1 Green innovation investment 3.1.8.1.1 Venture capital investment in green innovation start-ups

Top province/territory: British Columbia, 100 % Average score: 20 % British Colombia (138.49 $/capita) and Ontario (80.53 $/capita) are the clear leaders in venture capital investments in green innovation startups (2002-‐2011). British Columbia has invested a total of $609,347,371, which is almost 30 % of Canada’s total investment for that time period. A large range of values was observed for this indicator (0 $/capita – 138.49 $/capita), with the three Territories and Newfoundland at $0 investment, resulting in a low average score. 3.1.8.2 Cleantech companies 3.1.8.2.1 Total number of Cleantech companies per province/territory

Top province/territory: Prince Edward Island, 100 % Average score: 54 % With only 7 Cleantech companies, PEI ranked first in this indicator once evaluated on a per capita basis, with British Colombia followed closely behind with a total of 160 Cleantech companies. Of Canada’s total 709 Cleantech companies, Ontario is the largest contributor on an absolute basis, with 221 Cleantech companies in total (2011). Newfoundland ranked last with 7 Cleantech companies per provincial capita.

British Columbia Strengths A green-energy powerhouse that gets 89 per cent of its electricity from renewables and is a hotbed for clean technology innovation. In the area of transportation, B.C. is the province with the lowest vehicle-kilometres travelled per capita, for both heavy duty and light duty vehicles. B.C. is also one of the least wasteful provinces, with a relatively high GDP per tonne of waste disposed and one of the highest waste diversion rates in the country. Weaknesses Gets low grade for water and could do much more to lower GHGs and other pollutants. B.C. had the lowest number of water stations with “normal” or “high” water quantity, a poor water quality score, and less than 60 per cent of its population is served with secondary wastewater treatment. GDP per kilotonne of GHG and non-GHG emissions are mostly above the national average, but not reflective of a province blessed with vast green-energy resources.

Ranked 2nd

A4th 9th 4th 1st 2nd 1st 1st

Air + Climate Water Nature Transportation Waste Energy + Building Innovation

Alberta

Ranked 9th

C 10th Air + Climate 5th Water 1st Nature 10th Transportation 7th Waste 10th Energy + Building 5th Innovation

44 • Corporate Knights • Sp r in g 2012

Strengths Rates high in the nature category with 12.4 per cent of land given protected status to conserve habitat of ecological importance. Also tops in percentage of forest land certified under Forest Stewardship Council and has relatively high visits per capita to national parks. In water category, is province with highest GDP per litre of water used. It hosts an above-average number of clean technology companies, while nearly 10 per cent of new housing starts are “green homes,” ahead of most provinces. Weaknesses Low energy productivity, highest residential energy use per capita, and province with least amount of renewables in electricity mix at 5.72 per cent. Province with the highest number of kilometres travelled per capita, for both heavy duty and light duty vehicles. Second-highest GHGs per capita and secondlowest carbon productivity, reflecting oil sands growth and heavy dependence on fossil fuels for electricity generation. This is also reflected by high emissions of non-GHG pollutants, including NOx, VOCs and chromium.

Ranked 10th

Saskatchewan

Strengths Performs well in water category. Has relatively low releases of mercury, lead and cadmium into water systems, and has secondary wastewater treatment for more than 90 per cent of population. Virtually all monitored water stations report normal or high quantities with fairly average quality ratings. Citizens keen on home efficiency. Province had highest number of applications per capita for the 2011/12 ecoENERGY home retrofit program.

9th 2nd 6th 9th 8th 9th 7th

Air + Climate Water Nature Transportation Waste Energy + Building Innovation

Weaknesses Saskatchewan has one of the lowest GDPs per tonne of waste disposed and one of the lowest waste diversion rates in country. It has lowest energy productivity, the second-highest residential energy use per capita, and an electricity system heavily dependent on coal. Province with the second-highest number of kilometres travelled per capita for light duty vehicles and third-highest for heavy duty vehicles. Has highest GHGs per capita, lowest carbon productivity score, and saw highest growth of GHG emissions in the country between 1990 and 2009.

Manitoba Ranked 8th

C+ 6th Air + Climate 1st Water 10th Nature 8th Transportation 9th Waste 2nd Energy + Building 9th Innovation

Strengths Like Saskatchewan, Manitoba is a high performer in the water category, but also does well in energy. It has relatively high GDP per litre of water used and 98 per cent of population has secondary wastewater treatment. As well, all water monitoring stations show normal or high levels and there is below-average release of toxins. Manitoba’s electricity mix is virtually 100 per cent renewable. Weaknesses Its economy is wasteful. It only produces $40,000 in GDP for every tonne of waste disposed – putting it tied for last place with Quebec – and it has the lowest waste diversion per capita in Canada. In transportation, its heavy-duty vehicle fleet averages secondhighest kilometres travelled per capita (provinces only) and has the lowest fuel efficiency in the country. Its national parks, meanwhile, score lowest on ecological integrity.

Sp r ing 2 0 1 2

• Corporate Knights • 45

Ranked 1st

Ontario

A-

Strengths Still on a path to phase out coal power and phase in more renewables, Ontario already scores high in air and climate. It generates the most GDP per kilotonne of NOx, VOCs, and particulates, and for every megatonne of CO2-equivalent GHGs. It has reduced GHGs by 6.5 per cent since 1990, making it the only province to reach Kyoto emission-reduction targets. It gets high marks for building green homes and embracing energy retrofits for old ones, and is a clean technology leader.

1st 9th 3rd 6th 5th 3rd 2nd

Air + Climate Water Nature Transportation Waste Energy + Building Innovation

Weaknesses Waste diversion per capita is below the national average. Among provinces, it has the lowest visits per capita to national parks. Its residential sectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy use per capita is slightly below the national average. In the area of water, it scores near the bottom because of high levels of mercury, lead and cadmium releases relative to the other provinces.

Quebec

Ranked 4th

B 3rd Air + Climate 10th Water 2nd Nature 3rd Transportation 4th Waste 4th Energy + Building 6th Innovation

46 â&#x20AC;˘ Corporate Knights â&#x20AC;˘ Sp r in g 2012

Strengths The province scores well in the air and climate category, having reduced its GHG emissions by 1.9 per cent since 1990. Also leads the country with the lowest GHG levels per capita. An emphasis on boreal forest protection has led to over 50 per cent of its forests being FSC certified. Hydro-electric power continues to power the province, with 97 per cent of energy generation coming from renewable sources. Light vehicles are fuel efficient, burning 9.9 litres per 100 km. Weaknesses Quebec receives lowest water score by maintaining poor water quality, releasing large amounts of mercury, lead and cadmium into streams and rivers, and consuming 706 litres of water a day per capita. National park visitation is sporadic, with under 1.5 million visits last year. The waste score is reduced due to the province being tied with Manitoba in generating the highest levels of waste compared to GDP output. Chromium emissions are elevated in the air and climate category.

New Brunswick

Ranked 7th

C+

Strengths Earns high grade in transportation, with lowest levels of heavy duty vehicle usage after B.C. New Brunswick is competitive on waste, with highest rate of diverted material per capita annually. The provinceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water quality leads the nation, and it has the greatest percentage of cumulative species that are not in danger at 88 per cent. The population, along with that of Saskatchewan, took the greatest advantage of the federal ecoENERGY home retrofit program.

7th 6th 9th 2nd 3rd 6th 8th

Air + Climate Water Nature Transportation Waste Energy + Building Innovation

Weaknesses Only 3.1 per cent of the province qualifies as a protected nature area, and there are no FSC certified forests. New Brunswick uses greatest amount of water per capita, and residential consumption is high. Inefficient levels of GHG per capita push air and climate scores down, along with elevated sulphur oxide and mercury emissions. Low energy productivity, along with inefficient residential energy use, places the province in front of only Alberta and Saskatchewan in energy category.

Nova Scotia Ranked 5th

B8th 4th 5th 7th 1st 8th 4th

Air + Climate Water Nature Transportation Waste Energy + Building Innovation

Strengths Leads all provinces in waste management, mixing the most efficient levels of waste disposal per capita with a high diversion rate. National parks within provincial boundaries have the greatest ecological integrity, and cumulative species status score is high as well. Residential energy use per capita is tied for second in efficiency, and the province is home to greatest percentage of new green certified housing starts. It also maintains the third-largest number of cleantech companies per capita. Weaknesses Nova Scotia has third-lowest air and climate score, due to GHG emissions growing 10.5 per cent since 1990, low levels of GHG efficiency, and elevated sulphur oxide levels. Energy ranking was affected by small amount of electricity generation, 12 per cent, being derived from renewables. Municipal wastewater treatment levels are low in the province, with only 31 per cent of residents living in areas with secondary wastewater treatment facilities or better. Sp r ing 2 0 1 2

â&#x20AC;˘ Corporate Knights â&#x20AC;˘ 47

P.E.I. Ranked 3rd

Strengths Rates third on air and climate, with low GHG emissions per capita. The province has reduced its GHG emissions by 3.4 per cent since 1990. By treating 100 per cent of municipal wastewater and releasing no lead, cadmium or mercury, it is ranked third on its water score as well. Prince Edward Island is tied with Manitoba in generating the most energy, 99 per cent, from renewable sources, though this is largely because other sources of energy are bought from neighbouring provinces.

B+ 2nd 3rd 8th 5th n/a 5th 3rd

Air + Climate Water Nature Transportation Waste Energy + Building Innovation

Weaknesses The province is ranked third from the bottom on nature, with smallest amount of protected area set aside, and the second-lowest cumulative species status score. Transportation category is affected by significant use of the least fuel-efficient heavy vehicles in the country. Water quality is poor, tied with Manitoba for the second-lowest rating after Quebec. Cleantech position is lowered because P.E.I. is one of only two provinces that has received no venture capital investments since 2002.

Newfoundland & Labrador Strengths Competitive in several nature categories, maintaining the strongest levels of ecological integrity in national parks, the second-highest score in species protection, and a high volume of Parks Canada visitation. In the transportation category, heavy vehicles in Newfoundland are second in fuel efficiency. They are driven rarely, at an average of 437 km per capita. The 97 per cent of electricity generation coming from renewables boosts its energy ranking.

Ranked 6th Weaknesses Newfoundland has the lowest innovation score due to the lack of venture capital investment over the past decade, as well as containing the smallest number of cleantech companies per capita of any province. Water quality and treatment is low, as only 7.9 per cent of the population has secondary wastewater treatment or better. The provinceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nature indicators suffer as a result of no FSC certified forests, and just 4.6 per cent of land being designated as a protected area.

48 â&#x20AC;˘ Corporate Knights â&#x20AC;˘ Sp r in g 2012

C+ 5th 7th 7th 4th 6th 7th 10th

Air + Climate Water Nature Transportation Waste Energy + Building Innovation

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

8.2

General status of species in Canada

10.0

Innovation

Energy & Buildings

Waste

Transportation

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management Parks Canada visitation

0.6

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

5.0

Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency

5.1

Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

5.1

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency

5.1

kg of waste disposed annually

5.4

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

4.3

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary

5.9

Total secondary energy use, residential sector (GJ per capita) % total electricity generation that is renewable

5.3

% new housing starts that are green certified homes (EnerGuide Rating System, ENERGY STAR for New Homes Initiative, R-‐2000 Standard (R-‐2000)) EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program participation

6.2

Venture capital investment in green innovation startups total # cleantech companies per province

6.4

2.4

8.0

4.1

Ontario (60.06 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%) Air and Climate (83 %) 1. Sulphur oxide emissions, 100 % 2. Nitrogen oxide emissions, 100 % 3. % change in GHG emissions since 1990, 100 %

Raw Data (Ideal)

Worst Score (%) Waste (48 %)

Raw Data (Ideal)

1. kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually, 43 %

1. 215 kg/capita (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

2. 3.

2.40 $B GDP/kt (ideal 2x nat’l avg.) 1.31 $B GDP/kt (ideal 2x nat’l avg.) -‐ 6.5 % (ideal -‐ 6%)

4.2 British Columbia, AProvince/territory score: 60 % Province/ Territory British Columbia Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 5.6 4.9 7

5.9

Transpo -rtation 5.8

Nature

Innovation 9.3

TOTAL %

6.3

Energy & Buildings 6.0

Waste

60.0

Category

Indicator

Score

Air & Climate

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Sulphur oxide emissions

10.0

Nitrogen oxide emissions

5.4

Volatile organic compound emissions

5.2

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Status of freshwater quality for protection of aquatic life at monitoring stations in selected drainage regions in Canada Municipal wastewater treatment kg of Cadmium released to water kg of Lead released to water kilograms of Mercury released to water Average daily litres of water used per capita, total (non-‐ residential, so industrial) Average daily litres of water used per capita, residential

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory

Transportation

7.1 5.7 6.9 5.3 7.5

5.8 5.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.3

Ecological integrity of national parks

7.3 6.7

General status of species in Canada

8.3

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

1.7

Parks Canada visitation

Waste

4.8 0.0

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

5.5 5.8 4.4 9.0

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

4 5.8

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

6.7

Energy & Buildings

Total secondary energy use, residential sector (GJ per capita) % total electricity generation that is renewable

Inn ov ati on

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary

Venture capital investment in green innovation startups

% new housing starts that are green certified homes (EnerGuide Rating System, ENERGY STAR for New Homes Initiative, R-‐2000 Standard (R-‐2000)) EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program participation

4.9 6.3 8.9

2.3 7.4 10

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

8.6

total # cleantech companies per province

B.C. (60.0 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%) Innovation (93 %) 1. Venture capital investment in green start-‐ups, 100 %

Raw Data (Ideal)

1. 138.5 $/capita (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

Worst Score (%) Water (49 %) 1. Lead released, 0 % 2. Cadmium released, 0 %

Raw Data (Ideal) 1. 3701.0 kg (ideal 0 kg) 2. 752.0 kg (ideal 0 kg)

4.3 Prince Edward Island, B+ Province/territory score: 59 % Province/ Territory P.E.I. Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 7.1 7.6 3

4.9

Transpo -rtation 5.4

Nature

Innovation 5.0

TOTAL %

n/a

Energy & Buildings 5.1

n/a

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

5.9

Volatile organic compound emissions

4.9

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Status of freshwater quality for protection of aquatic life at monitoring stations in selected drainage regions in Canada Municipal wastewater treatment

3.5 7.8 7.3 5.0 7.3 10.0 10.0

5.0

kg of Cadmium released to water

10.0 10.0

kg of Lead released to water

10.0

kilograms of Mercury released to water Average daily litres of water used per capita, total (non-‐ residential, so industrial) Average daily litres of water used per capita, residential Nature

10.0

Protected areas by province/territory Ecological integrity of national parks

10.0 4.0 7.0 1.4 n/a

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

General status of species in Canada

8.1

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

0.0

Parks Canada visitation

Transportation

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

5.3 5.3

Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

7.8

Waste

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

3.3 n/a

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

n/a

Energy & Buildings

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary

4.9

Total secondary energy use, residential sector (GJ per capita) % total electricity generation that is renewable

7.3 9.9

% new housing starts that are green certified homes (EnerGuide Rating System, ENERGY STAR for New Homes Initiative, R-‐2000 Standard (R-‐2000)) EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program participation

2.3 2.1 0.0

Innovation

Venture capital investment in green innovation startups total # cleantech companies per province

P.E.I. (59 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%) Water (76 %) 1. Municipal Wastewater Treatment, 100 %

Raw Data (Ideal)

1. 100 % (ideal, 100 %)

Worst Score (%) Nature (49 %) 1. % forestland under FSC-‐ certified management, 0 %

Raw Data (Ideal) 1. 0 % (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

4.4 Yukon Territory, B Province/territory score: 56 % Province/ Territory Yukon Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 8.7 5.9 1

8.2

Transpo -rtation 1.7

Nature

Innovation 0.0

TOTAL %

n/a

Energy & Buildings 5.6

n/a

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

10.0

Volatile organic compound emissions PM<2.5 emissions

10.0

6.4 8.5

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

10.0

% change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita

6.6

GHG efficiency

7.3

Mercury emissions

9.0 10.0

Hexavalent chromium emissions

8.8

Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Status of freshwater quality for protection of aquatic life at monitoring stations in selected drainage regions in Canada Municipal wastewater treatment kg of Cadmium released to water

n/a

Average daily litres of water used per capita, total (non-‐ residential, so industrial) Average daily litres of water used per capita, residential

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory

Transportation Waste

5.6 3.7

Ecological integrity of national parks

6.1 8.3

General status of species in Canada

8.5

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

n/a

Parks Canada visitation

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

3.5 n/a

Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

0.0

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

n/a n/a

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

n/a

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary Energy & Buildings

4.1 n/a n/a

kg of Lead released to water kilograms of Mercury released to water

Innovation

6.3

Total secondary energy use, residential sector (GJ per capita) % total electricity generation that is renewable % new housing starts that are green certified homes (EnerGuide Rating System, ENERGY STAR for New Homes Initiative, R-‐2000 Standard (R-‐2000)) EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program participation Venture capital investment in green innovation startups total # cleantech companies per province

7.1 8.4 9.4

n/a 0.5 0 n/a

Yukon (56 %) Category

Best Score (%) Air & Climate (87 %)

Raw Data (Ideal)

Worst Raw Data Score (%) (Ideal) Innovation (0 %)

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Indicator

1. % change in GHG emissions since 1990, 100 %

1. -‐41.3 % (ideal -‐6 %)

1. Venture capital investment in green start-‐ups, 0 %

1. 0 $/capita (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

4.5 Quebec, B Province/territory score: 55 % Province/ Territory Quebec Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 6.7 4.7 6

6.3

Transpo -rtation 5.6

Nature

Innovation 3.8

TOTAL %

5.3

Energy & Buildings 5.1

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

8.4

Volatile organic compound emissions

5.8

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory

3.6 6.6 7.9 7.4 6.9 5.2 10.0

3.9 5.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.8

Ecological integrity of national parks

4.4 7.0

General status of species in Canada

8.4

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management Parks Canada visitation

Transpo rtation

9.6

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency

10.0 1.9 5.2 5.7

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

6.5

Waste

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

5.1 4.3

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

6.3

Energy & Buildings

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary Total secondary energy use, residential sector (GJ per capita) % total electricity generation that is renewable % new housing starts that are green certified homes (EnerGuide Rating System, ENERGY STAR for New Homes Initiative, R-‐2000 Standard (R-‐2000)) EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program participation

Innovation

Venture capital investment in green innovation startups total # cleantech companies per province

4.8 5.2 9.7

n/a 0.7 3.0 4.5

Quebec (55 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%) Air & Climate (67 %) 1. Sulphur oxide emissions, 96 %

Raw Data (Ideal)

1. 1.67 $B GDP/kt (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

Worst Score (%) Innovation (38 %) 1. Venture capital investment in green start-‐ups, 30 %

Raw Data (Ideal) 1. 38.4 $/capita (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

4.6 Nunavut, BProvince/territory score: 53 % Province/ Territory Nunavut Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 6.8 6.3 5

4.4

Transpo -rtation 9.5

Nature

Innovation 0.0

TOTAL %

n/a

Energy & Buildings 1.9

n/a

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

1.9

Volatile organic compound emissions

5.0

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions

10.0

3.7 3.6 6.6 7.3 8.9 10.0

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

10.0

Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Status of freshwater quality for protection of aquatic life at monitoring stations in selected drainage regions in Canada Municipal wastewater treatment kg of Cadmium released to water

n/a

Average daily litres of water used per capita, total (non-‐ residential, so industrial) Average daily litres of water used per capita, residential

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory

Transportation Waste

3.9 3.7

Ecological integrity of national parks

5.1 n/a

General status of species in Canada

7.9

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

n/a

Parks Canada visitation

0.2

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

9.5 n/a

Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

9.5

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

n/a n/a

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

n/a

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary Energy & Buildings

4.1 n/a n/a

kg of Lead released to water kilograms of Mercury released to water

Innovation

7.5

7.1 8.4 0.0

0.0 n/a 0.0 n/a

Nunavut (53 %) Category Indicator

Best Raw Data (Ideal) Score (%) Transportation (95 %) 1. Light vehicles 1. 940.3 km/capita (km/capita), 95 % (ideal 0 km/capita)

Worst Score (%) Innovation (0 %) 1. Venture capital investment in green start-‐ups, 0 %

Raw Data (Ideal) 1. 0 $/capita (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

4.7 Nova Scotia, BProvince/territory score: 53 % Province/ Territory Nova Scotia Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 3.2 7.3 11

5.6

Transpo -rtation 5.1

Nature

Innovation 4.2

TOTAL %

7.1

Energy & Buildings 4.7

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

3.5

Volatile organic compound emissions

4.9

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory

Transportation

2.6 0.0 5.4 3.1 2.7 4.5 10.0

6.4 3.1 9.8 10.0 9.9 4.2 5.3

Ecological integrity of national parks

4.2 7.5

General status of species in Canada

8.6

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

5.1

Parks Canada visitation

Waste

1.3

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

2.5 4.4 5.9 5.8

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

4.3 8.1

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

6.1

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Energy & Buildings

Innovation

Venture capital investment in green innovation startups total # cleantech companies per province

4.9 6.3 1.2

6.7 5.3 2.0 6.4

Nova Scotia (53 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%)

Raw Data (Ideal)

Worst Score (%)

Raw Data (Ideal)

Water (73 %) 1. Water quantity, 100 %

Air & Climate (32 %) 1. 100 % water 1. % change in 1. +10.5 % (ideal -‐6 stations monitored GHG emissions %) with normal or high since 1990, 0 % water quantity (ideal 100 %)

4.8 Northwest Territories, BProvince/territory score: 50 % Province/ Territory N.W.T Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 6.9 8.0 4

5.3

Transpo -rtation 3.7

Nature

Innovation 0.0

TOTAL %

n/a

Energy & Buildings 3.1

n/a

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

2.1

Volatile organic compound emissions

6.0

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency

Water

Mercury emissions

10.0

3.9 3.6 6.6 7.3

Hexavalent chromium emissions

8.8 10.0

Water quantity by drainage region

10.0

Status of freshwater quality for protection of aquatic life at monitoring stations in selected drainage regions in Canada

7.5

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Municipal wastewater treatment kg of Cadmium released to water

4.1 10.0

kg of Lead released to water

10.0

kilograms of Mercury released to water

10.0

Average daily litres of water used per capita, total (non-‐ residential, so industrial) Average daily litres of water used per capita, residential

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory

4.5 7.5

General status of species in Canada

8.6

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

n/a

Transportation Waste

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

0.6 7.3 n/a 0.0

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

n/a n/a

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

n/a

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary Energy & Buildings

3.7

Ecological integrity of national parks

Parks Canada visitation

Innovation

8.3

7.1 8.4 4.0

0.0 0.8 0.0 n/a

N.W.T. (50 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%) Water (80 %) 1. Water quantity, 100 %

Raw Data (Ideal)

Worst Score (%) Innovation (0 %) 1. 100 % water 1. Venture capital stations monitored investment in with normal or high green start-‐ups, 0 water quantity % (ideal 100 %)

Raw Data (Ideal) 1. 0 $/capita (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

4.9 Newfoundland, C+ Province/territory score: 49 % Category

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Province/ Territory Newfoundland

Air & Climate 4.2

Rank

Water

Nature

6.4

5.4

Transpo -rtation 5.5

Innovation 1.6

TOTAL %

4.7

Energy & Buildings 4.8

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

2.8

Volatile organic compound emissions

1.8

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory

Transportation Waste

1.8 2.8 6.2 4.4 1.9 10.0 9.3

5.8 0.8 10.0 8.7 9.9 2.9 3.7

Ecological integrity of national parks

2.3 7.5

General status of species in Canada

8.7

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

0.0

Parks Canada visitation

Energy & Buildings

2.8

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

8.7 5.3 5.1 6.6

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

5.2 4.7

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

n/a

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary Total secondary energy use, residential sector (GJ per capita) % total electricity generation that is renewable

4.3 5.8 9.7

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

% new housing starts that are green certified homes (EnerGuide Rating System, ENERGY STAR for New Homes Initiative, R-‐2000 Standard (R-‐2000)) EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program participation

0.2 4.2 0

Innovation

Venture capital investment in green innovation startups total # cleantech companies per province

3.2

Newfound- land (49 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%)

Raw Data (Ideal)

Water (64 %) 1. Mercury released, 100 %

1. 0.02 kg (ideal 0 kg)

Worst Score (%)

Raw Data (Ideal)

Innovation (16 %) 1. Venture capital 1. 0 $/capita (ideal investment in 2x nat’l avg.) green start-‐ups, 0 %

4.10 New Brunswick, C+ Province/territory score: 49 % Province/ Territory New Brunswick Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 3.3 6.7 10

4.5

Transpo -rtation 5.7

Nature

Innovation 2.4

TOTAL %

6.0

Energy & Buildings 4.8

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

3.9

Volatile organic compound emissions

3.8

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions

Water

Water quantity by drainage region Status of freshwater quality for protection of aquatic life at monitoring stations in selected drainage regions in Canada Municipal wastewater treatment kg of Cadmium released to water kg of Lead released to water

2.5

2.8 0.0 5.0 2.9 0.4 7.7 10.0

7.7 5.5 8.9 8.1

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

kilograms of Mercury released to water

2.2

Average daily litres of water used per capita, total (non-‐ residential, so industrial) Average daily litres of water used per capita, residential

2.5 3.7

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory Ecological integrity of national parks

1.6 6.0

General status of species in Canada

8.8

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

0.0

Parks Canada visitation

Transportation

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

4.3 5.1

Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

8.6

Waste

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

4.9 4.8

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

7.1

Energy & Buildings

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary

3.9

Total secondary energy use, residential sector (GJ per capita) % total electricity generation that is renewable

4.5 3.3

% new housing starts that are green certified homes (EnerGuide Rating System, ENERGY STAR for New Homes Initiative, R-‐2000 Standard (R-‐2000)) EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program participation

2.3 9.3 1.3

Innovation

Venture capital investment in green innovation startups total # cleantech companies per province

3.5

New Brunswick (49 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%)

Raw Data (Ideal)

Water (67 %) 1. Cadmium released, 22 %

1. 433 kg (ideal 0 kg)

Worst Score (%)

Raw Data (Ideal)

Innovation (24 %) 1. Venture capital 1. 16.17 $/capita investment in (ideal 2x nat’l avg.) green start-‐ups, 0 %

4.11 Manitoba, C+ Province/territory score: 48 % Province/ Territory Manitoba Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 4.2 7.8 9

4.0

Transpo -rtation 3.9

Nature

Innovation 2.2

TOTAL %

3.5

Energy & Buildings 5.8

Waste

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

5.4

Volatile organic compound emissions

4.2

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory

Transportation Waste

4.5 0.0 6.6 4.7 0.0 10.0 10.0

5.0 9.8 9.7 9.1 8.6 6.7 6.8

Ecological integrity of national parks

4.5 5.0

General status of species in Canada

8.3

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

0.0

Parks Canada visitation Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

2.4 5.4 4.6 0.1

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

5.3 4.3

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

2.8

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary Energy & Buildings

0.8

4.5 4.9 9.9

1.0 7.5

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

1.1

Innovation

Venture capital investment in green innovation startups total # cleantech companies per province

3.3

Manitoba (48 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%) Water (78 %) 1. Water quantity, 100 %

Raw Data (Ideal)

Worst Score (%) Innovation (22 %) 1. 100 % water 1. Venture capital stations monitored investment in with normal or high green start-‐ups, water quantity 11 % (ideal 100 %)

Raw Data (Ideal) 1. 14.1 $/capita (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

4.12 Alberta, C Province/territory score: 45 % Province/ Territory Alberta Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 1.9 6.8 13

8.1

Transpo -rtation 3.3

Nature

Innovation 4.1

TOTAL %

4.2

Energy & Buildings 2.9

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

1.9

Volatile organic compound emissions

3.1

PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990

5.5 0.0

Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita

0.0

GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions Water quantity by drainage region Status of freshwater quality for protection of aquatic life at monitoring stations in selected drainage regions in Canada Municipal wastewater treatment

Water

2.7

kg of Cadmium released to water kg of Lead released to water kilograms of Mercury released to water Average daily litres of water used per capita, total (non-‐ residential, so industrial) Average daily litres of water used per capita, residential

1.7 3.9 0.0 7.7

6.7 9.8 0.0 7.0 4.4 8.2 6.6

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory Ecological integrity of national parks

6.3 5.7

General status of species in Canada

8.6 10.0

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management Parks Canada visitation

Transportation

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

3.7 4.3

Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

0.0

Waste

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

5.1 4.5

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

3.9

Energy & Buildings

Innovation

Venture capital investment in green innovation startups total # cleantech companies per province

3.0 1.7 0.6

3.8 4.9 2.5 5.7

Alberta (45 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%) Nature (81 %) 1. Parks Canada visitation per capita, 100 %

Raw Data (Ideal)

1. 1.56 (ideal 1 visit/capita)

Worst Raw Data Score (%) (Ideal) Air & Climate (19 %) 1. GHG emissions, 1. 63.6 t/capita t/capita, 0 % (ideal 0 t/capita)

4.13 Saskatchewan, C Province/territory score: 44 % Province/ Territory Saskatchewan Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 2.5 7.8 12

5.5

Transpo -rtation 3.3

Nature

Innovation 2.6

TOTAL %

3.7

Energy & Buildings 4.4

Waste

Air & Climate

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions

Score

Nitrogen oxide emissions

1.9

1.8

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

1.5

Volatile organic compound emissions PM<2.5 emissions

3.1 0.0

% change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita

0.0

GHG efficiency

1.2

Mercury emissions

0.0

Hexavalent chromium emissions

10.0 9.6

Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Status of freshwater quality for protection of aquatic life at monitoring stations in selected drainage regions in Canada Municipal wastewater treatment kg of Cadmium released to water

9.8

Average daily litres of water used per capita, total (non-‐ residential, so industrial) Average daily litres of water used per capita, residential

Nature

Protected areas by province/territory

Transportation Waste

5.0 6.2

Ecological integrity of national parks

4.0 7.0

General status of species in Canada

8.1

% forest land under FSC-‐certified management

5.9

Parks Canada visitation

2.5

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

4.1 4.2

Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

0.7

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

4.3 4.5

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

2.9

Energy Use-‐ Final Demand, Primary & Secondary Energy & Buildings

9.3 9.8 9.8

kg of Lead released to water kilograms of Mercury released to water

Innovation

6.1

2.4 4.1 2.1

2.7 9.4 0.4 4.8

Saskat-

Best

Raw Data (Ideal)

Worst

Raw Data

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

chewan (44 %) Category Indicator

Score (%)

Water (78 %) 1. Mercury released, 98 %

(Ideal)

Air & Climate (25 %) 1. 1.0 kg (ideal 0 kg) 1. % change in 1. 69 % (ideal -‐6 %) GHG emissions since 1990, 0 %

4.14 The ideal province, Excellent Province/territory score: 86 % Note: The fictional ‘ideal province’ score was calculated using the top scoring province for each indicator; calculations can be found in Table A under the ‘Ideal province’ tab. Province/ Territory Ideal Rank

Category Air & Water Climate 9.1 8.8 1

8.9

Transpo -rtation 7.6

Nature

Innovation 10.0

TOTAL %

7.6

Energy & Buildings 8.4

Ideal

Waste

Category

Indicator Sulphur oxide emissions Nitrogen oxide emissions

Air & Climate

Volatile organic compound emissions PM<2.5 emissions % change in GHG emissions since 1990 Tonnes of GHG emitted per capita GHG efficiency Mercury emissions Hexavalent chromium emissions Water quantity by drainage region

Water

Protected areas by province/territory Ecological integrity of national parks General status of species in Canada % forest land under FSC-‐certified management

Score 10 10 8.4 8.5 10 7.9 7.4 9 10 10

7.7 10 10 10 10 8.3 7 7.3 8.3 8.8 10

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

Waste

Transportation

Parks Canada visitation

Light duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

9.5

Light duty vehicles, fuel efficiency

5.9

Heavy duty vehicles, km travelled per capita

9.5

Heavy duty vehicles, fuel efficiency kg of waste disposed annually

5.3 8.1

kg disposed waste that is diverted per capita annually

7.1

Innovation

Energy & Buildings

7.1 8.4 9.9

6.7 9.4 10 10

Ideal (86 %) Category Indicator

Best Score (%) Innovation (100 %) 1. Venture capital investment in green start-‐ups, 100 % 2. Total Cleantech companies per capita, 100 %

Raw Data (Ideal)

1. 138.5 $/capita, B.C. (ideal 2x nat’l avg.) 2. 49.9 companies per 1,000,000 people, PEI (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

Worst Score (%) Waste (76 %) 1. Waste diverted per capita, 71 %

Raw Data (Ideal) 1. 357 kg/capita, New Brunswick (ideal 2x nat’l avg.)

5 Conclusion In a least one of the seven categories in our 2012 Green Provinces Ranking we see the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Alberta, Nunavut, Nova Scotia and B.C. leading the way. Ontario didn’t lead any single category, so how did it come out on top overall? No one province or territory excelled in every category. Some achieved highest or second highest scores in one category, but lowest scores in other categories. Ontario and B.C. both topped our 2012 ranking because they achieved highest or second highest scores in multiple categories, and have no extremely low scores. Even so, out of an ideal overall grade of 100 per cent Ontario achieved only 61 per cent and B.C. achieved a grade of 60 per cent, which relative to other provinces gave them an A-‐ letter grade.

2012 Green Provinces Report, Corporate Knights Magazine

There’s room to do much better. CK calculated that if all provinces and territories got the highest score in each of the seven categories measured in our 2012 report, the ‘ideal province’ would score 86 per cent, which makes our nation more than just an A student. Indeed, it puts us in the category of green economy genius. It’s clearly doable. For each indicator of each category, it has already been done by at least one province or territory. To pursue such best practices on a national scale, however, will require much greater cooperation, collaboration, and information sharing than experienced so far. Behind that is the belief that each and every province and territory can achieve continued economic prosperity without needless sacrifice to the environment, and the natural capital necessary to sustain our long-‐term wellbeing.

6 REFERENCES Data is sourced primarily from publically accessible government websites, please refer to Table C methodology description for indicator website links and a complete list of sources.