Canada’s Project Green
Speaking notes for the Honourable Stéphane
Dion, P.C., M.P. Minister of the Environment
Vancouver Board
of Trade, Vancouver, BC
September 19, 2005
Speech delivered by the
Hon. Stéphane Dion P.C., M.P.,
Minister of the Environment
Check against delivery
In communicating with Canadians about Project Green, Paul Martin’s
vision to strengthen Canada’s position in the new Industrial Revolution
- that of the sustainable economy - it is particularly fitting for me
to be returning to British Columbia, to address the Vancouver Board of
Trade.
Vancouver is a focal point for sustainability, as you host the World
Urban Forum and the Olympics, a huge opportunity to showcase renewables
and the hydrogen highway.
British Columbia: the province where we see one of our fastest growing
economies and highest levels of environmental awareness; home of the
Suzuki Foundation and of Xantrex Technology, a world leader in advanced
bio-electronics; and the land that gave Canada the three great Davids:
David Suzuki, David Anderson, a champion of the environment who cares
about the economy, and David Emerson, a champion of the economy who cares
about the environment.
I should also mention the other members of the Cabinet from BC: Senator
Austin and Ministers Dosanjh, Owen, and Chan; all bring a green conscience
to decision making.
Here, in British Columbia, in the shadow of your mountains, of your
Douglas Fir and Red Cedar, the environment-economy debate seems to take
on a larger scale: the incredible potential of your ocean resources and
the no less incredible potential for disaster if they are harvested carelessly;
the amazing diversity and richness of the Okanagan Valley and the amazing
fragility of its superb, semi-desert ecosystem; the unrivalled development
of your forest industry and the ferocity of the pine beetle infestation
that your warmer winters cannot slow; the huge volume of raw sewage dumped
by Victoria into the ocean every day and the huge cost that will be required
to clean it up; the tough challenges posed by your blossoming relations
with the world’s new economic giants, India and China, well illustrated
by this weekend’s visit of the President of China to Ballard Power
Systems, and by Westport Innovations’ increasing involvement in
China.
Yes, everything seems to take on a larger magnitude in British Columbia,
like your determination in pursuing, at the same time, economic growth
and environmental sustainability. Obviously, you share our Prime Minister’s
vision: Project Green for a sustainable, competitive economy, a prosperous
Canada.
We all want to achieve this goal. But as a country, where do we rank
in the global sustainable economy compared to other nations? What are
we doing to build on our achievements? These are the two questions that
I will address with you.
1. Ranking Canada’s sustainability
Canadians have every reason
to be puzzled when faced with the release of comparative studies that
periodically assess our environmental performance.
Some rank us at a very high level, others at a very poor one. So, are
we good or are we bad?
I believe that these studies, however contradictory they may seem, provide
useful basis for comparison, as long as they are well interpreted. The
same can be said of the reports produced by the Commissioner for the
Environment and Sustainable Development, which offer useful information
to improve our environmental policies.
Table 1 shows Canada’s ranking against thirty OECD countries plus
Russia, using eight recent international indicators. Indeed, our ranking
varies from second to twenty-eighth.
The explanation of this discrepancy is that Canada ranks well in most
measurements when we look at the state of the environment (such as water
quality), but rather poorly in measurements of environmental pressures
(such as water consumption per person). So, an overall comparison of
these indicators shows that Canada’s ranking depends significantly
on how much relative weight is given to “state of the environment” versus “environmental
pressures” measurements.
This distinction explains the significant variation between Canada’s
ranking in the first six indices (on the left side) and the last two
of Table 1. The last two indices are heavily weighted towards per capita
measurements of environmental pressures, so Canada ranks lower on the
comparative scale. The first six focus more on the state of the environment,
so Canada ranks higher.
“State of the environment” rankings measure the condition
of air, water, land and life forms. Compared to situations elsewhere
in the world, most assessments indicate that Canada’s environment
is in very good condition. Rankings based on “environmental pressures” measure
the effects of human activities that can be harmful to the environment,
or to humans through the environment. For example, polluting emissions
and certain types of land use are environmental pressures. From this
perspective, we are rarely among the best performers.
Table 2 gives a clear picture of our ups and downs in determining how
Canada ranks in both global and OECD contexts. Our air quality is relatively
good but our air emissions performance puts us in the mid-range of OECD
countries. Our water’s quality is among the best in the world,
but our water withdrawals per person are one of the largest. Regarding
the issue of climate change, we are among the biggest emitters of carbon
dioxide. Our waste management is below the average in the OECD.
To summarize, the state of our environment is good but we are imposing
significant pressures on it. The fact is that Canada has a small population
in a vast and well endowed country (in terms of natural resources, such
as freshwater) compared to situations in other countries. However, on
a per-person basis, Canada’s environmental pressures are among
the greatest, particularly with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.
And this is of course explained by the fact that since we have so many
natural resources, we have not been as efficient in their use as other
industrialized countries that do not enjoy the same richness of natural
capital that we do.
I would argue that in this new industrial revolution in which we find
ourselves, it is imperative that we improve our performance regarding
environmental pressures, in order to enhance our quality of life and
our economic competitiveness. We need to become a more efficient economy,
a greener society.
And I am sure that the Vancouver Board of trade shares this view. You
know full well that the future of our forest industry, our fisheries
and our agriculture depend more than ever on their careful, sustainable
utilization; that the vitality of our tourist industry is closely linked
to the state of our parks, marine areas and wildlife; that air quality
and water quality strongly influence the attractiveness of our cities,
the health of our population, the cost of our health care system, the
quality of life of our citizens and the productivity of our workers.
You know that the issues related to adapting to climate change and limiting
greenhouse gas emissions will be significant forces shaping global and
national economies for the foreseeable future.
For our quality of life and our economic competitiveness, as well as
our natural environment, we need to increase our resource productivity
to become more efficient in the use of natural resources, especially
energy.
Indeed, in the global economy, resource productivity will become increasingly
important as global resource demands and energy costs increase rapidly
with an anticipated 50 percent population growth and 400 percent economic
growth by 2055. For business and industry around the globe, higher energy
prices are requiring them to examine the costs and efficiency of their
energy use more than ever. Business and industry must now strive for
world class performance in their energy efficiency just as they do in
terms of productivity, skills, and research and development.
In a word, we need an economy that does more with less. More productivity,
less waste: we need to make sure that our economic strategy and our environmental
policy will point in the same direction. We need Project Green.
2. Project Green: Increasing our environmental performance
Over the last year, Prime Minister Martin has given unprecedented momentum
to Canada’s environmental policy. The Speech from the Throne included
thirteen commitments on clean air and water, energy, climate change and
the preservation of our natural capital, which became the basis for Project
Green. Last February, our Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale gave Canada
its greenest budget since Confederation. In April, the government of
Canada released a comprehensive plan for honouring our Kyoto commitments.
Our environmental agenda is going ahead on all fronts.
On clean air, we are moving ahead with our Ten Year Clean Air Agenda laid out in 2000, in order to minimize pollution, reduce transportation
sector emissions, lower emissions from major industrial sources, improve
pollutant reporting by industry, advance clean air science, and engage
the public in finding solutions to clean air issues.
Taken together, Canada and the United States already have the strictest
vehicle engine and fuel regulations in the world for air pollutants.
And the Government has an agenda to further reduce harmful emissions
from vehicles, engines and fuels and to improve air quality. Reducing
sulphur in fuel for rail locomotives, marine vessels, and off-road construction
and mining equipment is an important element of that plan. I know that
this is an important environmental and health issue for you here in British
Columbia.
One of the key elements of our Clean Air Agenda is a strict regulatory
action plan. These regulations will reduce smog forming emissions from
new vehicles by 90 percent by 2010 compared with levels in 2000.
Earlier this year, I introduced for public comment, draft regulations
that will reduce sulphur in diesel fuel by about 99 percent from present
levels by the year 2010 for off-road equipment and by 2012 for rail and
marine use. The resulting health benefits to Canadians will include fewer
deaths, hospital admissions and days when people experience symptoms
of asthma. I expect the final regulatory package to be in place in October.
Our transportation regulatory plan will also ensure that starting in
2007, bus standards will require a reduction of 85 percent from current
allowable levels of emissions of NOX and 95 percent for particulate
matter levels.
Many of the sources of air pollution and smog fall within provincial
jurisdiction. The Federal Government is working very closely with the
provinces and territories to implement Canada-wide standards for particulate
matter and ozone, the two main precursors to smog. The federal, provincial
and territorial governments are also finalizing Canada-wide standards
to substantially reduce mercury emissions from the coal-fired electric
power generation sector by 2010. The goal is to capture over 60 percent
of the mercury released by coal combustion.
In August 2004, together with my counterpart at the US Environmental
Protection Agency, I made a commitment to consider negotiating a particulate
matter annex to the Canada-US Air Quality Agreement to bring about reductions
in both countries. We have completed the background science and are moving
forward to make a decision on when negotiations on an annex could begin.
Air quality is a significant concern for the six million residents of
the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound transboundary region. So I am pleased
to point out that a second joint study under the Canada/United States
Air Quality Pilot Project, addressing air quality in this region, was
released on July 29.
This study documents the international airshed strategy and initiatives
that my Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will
implement in collaboration with the Province of British Columbia, the
State of Washington and many regional and local government agencies to
reduce the effects of air pollution on human health and ecosystems in
this region.
We are also working with the U.S. Government to address air emissions
from marine vessels and port activities – another concern for the
region’s residents.
Finally, we are collaborating with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to develop marine emission reduction strategies that will address
emissions not only in the Georgia Basin – Puget Sound area, but
also in other marine areas in our countries.
This year’s budget will help us tremendously. It allocates $50
million over two years in support of the Border Air Quality Strategy
for the Canada-US Air Quality Initiative, $90 million over five years
to accelerate health risk assessments and research on the effects of
potentially harmful substances. Our Climate Change Plan, which I will
speak about later, will also help improve the quality of our air.
Another very significant budget measure for clean air is the transfer
to municipalities of $5 billion of gas tax revenue. This transfer, added
to the $800 million from Bill C-48, will support environmentally-sustainable
infrastructure projects such as public transit, and will help to purify
the air of our cities. It will also help to fund water and wastewater
treatment, community energy systems and the handling of solid waste.
Added to the additional $300 million the budget invested in the Green
Municipal Funds, this New Deal for Cities and Communities is itself a
green plan that will improve our quality of life and make our cities
and communities more attractive, competitive and prosperous.
Our agenda for water is also substantial, with the five year Water Management
Strategy to improve water and wastewater services for First Nation reserve
communities; the $28 million that the last Budget devoted to the first
phase of the government’s Oceans Action Plan; the $85 million strategy
to combat the proliferation of invasive alien species that eat between
$13 billion and $34 billion per year out of our economy; and the Canada-wide
management strategy for municipal wastewater effluents that the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment have agreed to develop by December
2006.
Last December, Environment Canada published two instruments for the
management of risks relating to discharges of municipal wastewater, namely
guidelines for ammonia and the preparation of pollution prevention plans
for chlorine.
With respect to air and water quality results, we do have some good
news. For example, in the chemical sector, annual releases of toxic substances
have been reduced by two-thirds since 1992, down to 1,100 tonnes from
3,400 tonnes. Building on our success, we will have classified 23,000
readily available chemical products by September 2006. Canada will be
the first country to be able to avail itself of such a systematic analysis
to improve its regulatory regime.
As well, emissions of mercury, lead, cadmium and dioxins and furans
have each dropped between 65 to 75 percent from 1990 to 2003.
As for better protecting our natural assets, I will mention especially
the $269 million that the last budget allocated in additional, much-needed
funds to our National Parks. This is good news for the preservation of
our natural environment, and good news for our economy. Our National
Parks are not only a magnificent part of Canada’s heritage, they
also contribute $1.2 billion to Canada’s GDP - the equivalent of
38,000 full time jobs - and are an essential source of revenue for our
tourist industry for many of our communities and for Canada’s aboriginal
people.
Further to this additional funding for parks, I was pleased to announce
this year’s extension of the ongoing Habitat Stewardship Program
and today I am just as pleased to make another announcement: $1.6 million
for the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Visitor Centre.
The Government of Canada also recognizes that the forests and ecosystems
in your province, one of the most beautiful natural assets of our country,
also require serious action. The mountain pine beetle epidemic is taking
its toll and there are serious long-term ecological and economic consequences
if no action is taken. Earlier this year, the Government of Canada announced
an additional $100 million in funding as a further step to the program
announced in 2002 to fight this plague. We are currently working with
the Province of BC on our next steps – the development of a comprehensive
strategy that will provide a long term solution to this crisis.
This government takes the protection of our marine ecosystems very
seriously and could not accept that over 500,000 birds are killed by
oil deposited into the marine environment in Canadian waters each year.
It is for this reason that the government recently passed Bill C-15,
an Act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. The Act, which came into force this past June, substantially
enhances our
ability to deal with this problem by extending our enforcement regime
to
the outward edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone.
Through the Oceans Action Plan, we have announced measures to establish
marine protected areas on all three coasts including, of course, here
in BC. We will continue to work with provincial governments to expand
this network of marine protected areas to protect key elements of the
marine ecosystem.
But nature conservation is not just about marine protected areas. We
must
protect and conserve our wildlife, too. With that in mind, last June
the
Government brought into force the Species at Risk Act. Since the Act
came into force, close to 100 species of plants and animals have been
added the list of species protected by the Act. It is not good news that
we have more species at risk of extinction in Canada. But the
Government is determined to do its part in protecting and working with
the provinces to recover them before they disappear.
A “conservation first” approach will be used to guide any
decisions involving the moratorium on offshore exploration and drilling.
We have asked our American neighbours and friends to adopt the same “conservation
first” approach and not drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
But we all know that prevention is invariably a wiser course that the
react and prevent approach. With that in mind, the Mexican Minister
of
the Environment, the US Secretary of the Interior and I recently signed
a landmark collaborative agreement to conserve and protect the
migratory birds the three countries share. Last month I met with Secretary
Norton in Washington to discuss how to expand this concept to the
hemispheric level and we agreed to raise the issue with Ministers of
the
Environment of the Americas at their next meeting.
Regarding federal contaminated sites, we have a solid Action Plan whose
goal is to complete, within 15 years, the assessment, remediation and
risk management of all of the estimated 6000 federal contaminated sites.
When we reach this goal, we will have changed liabilities into assets.
In doing so, remediation will create new economic opportunities for affected
communities, new jobs in the environmental industry, and new innovative
technologies.
In Budget 2004, the federal government took important steps to ensure
our own house is in order by committing $3.5 billion to cleaning up
federally-owned contaminated sites. For this fiscal year, 2005-2006,
the federal government
has committed an additional $138.7 million to deal with the 97 highest
risk sites identified under the Action Plan.
Although the 97 priority sites identified for 2005-06 are located in
all regions of the country, 38 of them are located right here in British
Columbia and an additional 30 across the three territories in the North.
And indeed, our overall Strategy for the North, as well as our investments
on the occasion of the International Polar Year, will sharply focus on
the sustainable development of our three Territories and the preservation
of the North’s fragile ecosystem, which is so affected by the negative
impacts of climate change.
Speaking of climate change, the Government of Canada is currently implementing
a number of major initiatives to get Canada’s Climate Change Plan
up and running on the ground. Over the course of the summer, a clear
description of the proposed Large Final Emitters system was published.
Draft regulations setting out the key elements of this system are planned
for release before the end of this year. On September 3, the proposed
addition of the six greenhouse gases to Schedule 1 of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act was published in the Canada Gazette Part 1. This is an
important and necessary step in the development of regulations that will
cover large industries that are being required to meet the 45 megatonne
reduction target set out in Canada’s Climate Change Plan.
In August, we released a proposed set of rules for an offset credit
system. This system will award credits to large and small industries,
technology companies, municipalities, farmers, foresters, and individual
Canadians who achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions. The system
will also create a market allowing these individuals, industries and
organizations to sell their credits, which is an efficient way to get
the maximum emissions reductions at the lowest cost. Cross-country consultations
on this proposed set of rules are taking place this fall.
We are working hard to ensure that the Climate Fund will start operations
beginning next year. Acting as a sort of investment bank, it will purchase
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from tangible projects.
For Canadians, opportunities will be available in all sectors of the
economy.
Examples of who could benefit from this fund include: forestry companies
that engage in state-of-the-art forest management practices; farmers
who adopt low-till practices; property developers who include district
heating and renewable energy elements in their plans for new sub-divisions;
businesses that develop innovative ways to reduce emissions through recycling
and energy efficiency; companies and municipalities that invest in their
communities to encourage alternative transportation modes; municipalities
that capture landfill gas and use it to generate electricity; or courier
companies that retrofit their fleets.
I am convinced that this market-based approach will be critical to integrating
climate change considerations into the day-to-day decisions of Canada’s
citizens and businesses, and unleashing the power of innovation for the
good of our environment and our economy.
Our businesses will benefit from this opportunity to develop their expertise
in the fields of environmental technologies and services and to deploy
them around the world. B.C. businesses especially will be well placed
to seize the opportunity created by our Climate Change Plan to win new
market shares in emerging economies and economies in transition, such
as China. The reductions of greenhouse gas emissions that Canada will
make abroad will help us to honour our Kyoto commitment.
Consultations have also begun with the provinces and territories to
identify strategic new technologies (such as fuel cell buses) and infrastructure
projects for cost sharing through the Partnership Fund. I was just talking
about this yesterday with my B.C. counterpart, Barry Penner. The first
projects under the Fund are expected to be announced before the end of
2005.
If we add to all this our initiative for renewable energies, our targeted
programs and fiscal incentives for environmental technologies and the
transportation sector, our home retrofit incentives, our purchasing strategy
for a greener government, our outreach strategies to involve Canadians,
one can see how much our Climate Change Plan is, at the same time, a
business strategy for Canada that will generate beneficial investments
across the economy.
But since Canada is responsible for only two percent of the human-made
greenhouse gas emissions, its effectiveness in reducing emissions will
depend on the effectiveness of the international regime. This is precisely
why, as the Government of Canada moves forward on implementing our Climate
Change Plan, it is also preparing to host the United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Montreal, November 28-December 9, 2005. Our goal
will be twofold: improving the functioning of the current Kyoto mechanisms,
and convincing the nations of the world of the need to find new ways
to increase international cooperation on this issue over the coming years.
Convincing the world nations to increase international cooperation is
an ambitious task, considering the opposing views about the form this
cooperation should take. Inspired by the leadership of our Prime Minister,
we are sparing no effort in preparing this important Conference with
conviction and determination. Canada will need a strong B.C. presence
in Montreal, so please show up in force. Bienvenue à Montréal!
As you see, our agendas for air, water, nature, contaminated sites and
climate change will provide enormous benefits, especially when measured
against the considerable costs of inaction. But these sound policies
will only yield their full potential if they are linked by an improved
decision making process, a framework for competitiveness and environmental
sustainability.
To this end, the Prime Minister announced in the last Throne Speech
that, from now on, “the Government will work with its partners
to build sustainable development systematically into decision making.” The
Prime Minister created the Ad Hoc Committee of Cabinet on Sustainability
and the Environment and appointed as its Chair the astute BC businessman,
David Emerson. Our Liberal Caucus mirrored this initiative with the Liberal
Caucus Economic and Sustainability Policy Committee.
For some time, we have been working with the provinces and territories
to renew and improve how we deal with shared environmental priorities.
Our work is now solidifying in the form of an agreement that will strengthen
our collective and respective capacities to address our shared environmental
challenges.
Our government will also consolidate the federal environmental assessment
process in order to make it more timely, responsive and effective. Finally,
for a better consultation process with the industry and the ENGOs, we
are putting in place Sector Sustainability Tables, beginning with the
areas of chemicals, forestry, mining and energy. This measure will create
more cohesion and certainty in the way we carry out environmental management
in Canada.
Conclusion
Yes, British Columbia and our country as a whole need Project
Green, this broad environmental vision that links Canada’s economic
competitiveness and prosperity to a sustainable future. The policies
and programs under
Project Green address environmental challenges for the 21st century.
Project Green: a far-reaching set of measures to improve our energy
efficiency and our waste management practices, improve the environmental
performance of our industrial sectors, conserve our biodiversity, protect
our water, clean up contaminated sites, ensure cleaner and healthier
air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Through Project Green, which
we will continue to deploy and expand in the coming years, Canada can
set an international example by developing effective, model solutions
for the long-term health of the planet.
We need to become a world leader in environmental technologies, in energy
efficiency, in resource productivity and in conservation. We have been
a champion of all the previous Industrial Revolutions, from the invention
of the steam engine to the knowledge economy. We will not miss the new
industrial revolution, the one of the sustainable economy. All of us
- governments, industry, NGOs, citizens - need to work harder for a greener
Canada. We owe this to ourselves, our children and the generations to
come.
Table 1 - Comparison of Eight International Indices
Canada’s Ranking versus 30 OECD Countries plus Russia
(1 = best)
ESI
2005
ESI
2002
KeepingScore
EPI
2002
EWI
2001
EF
2004
net
EF
2004
gross
UVic
2001
Canada
6
4
2
6
3
3
25
28
USA
18
18
10
14
14
29
29
29
UK
21
27
9
12
18
26
18
13
France
15
14
8
11
21
17
21
23
Germany
13
19
7
10
19
13
6
Japan
12
24
12
22
25
22
8
21
Italy
23
25
11
18
22
16
7
18
Australia
13
10
4
22
1
28
27
Norway
2
2
3
3
7
22
17
Mexico
27
28
6
20
29
10
2
2
Sweden
3
3
1
1
1
5
27
10
Russia
14
23
5
7
6
9
na
Note the significant variation between Canada’s
ranking in the first six indices (from left side) and the last two.
The latter are heavily weighted towards measures of environmental pressures,
thus rank Canada low. The former focus more on environmental state,
and give Canada a high ranking.
Guide to the Indices
ESI = Environmental Sustainability Index for the World Economic Forum.
Led by Dan Esty, Yale and Marc Levy, Columbia. Environmental systems
and stresses, human vulnerability, global stewardship, social/institutional
capacity.
Keeping Score = The Ecologist / Friends of the Earth revised ESI (2001)
and excluded all non-environmental indicators (i.e. institutional capacity).
Represented Urban Air Quality, Water Stress, Terrestrial Systems, Biodiversity,
Inputs to land, Inputs to air, Resources consumed.
EPI 2002 = Pilot Environmental Performance Index. Another Yale/Columbia
initiative for the World Economic Forum. Smaller set of indicators & 23
OECD countries. Four core indicators: air quality, water quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, land protection.
EWI = Ecosystem Wellbeing Index - IDRC- IUCN (2001) Robert Prescott-Allen.
Part one of two parts released as The Wellbeing of Nations: An index
of quality of life and the environment. Scores based on how close a country
is to sustainability in terms of land, water, air, species, resource
use. Part two was a human wellbeing index in which Canada ranked 8 out
of 180 countries. In the overall (combined) Wellbeing Index Canada was
one of 34 countries ranked as fair. Three countries were ranked as well.
EF = Ecological Footprint- Redefining Progress Institute (2004) As released
in the WWF Living Planet Report 2004. Rankings of 2001 data. Net = national
footprint minus national capacity. Gross = national footprint per person.
UVic = Canada vs the OECD - University of Victoria (2001) David Boyd.
Pressure based – per capita measures – includes population
growth.
Table 2 - How Canada Compares on Environmental Issues
Environmental State and Pressures
Environmental State is a measure (or measures) of conditions of water,
air, land and life forms.
Environmental Pressures are measures of the effects of human activities
that can be harmful to the environment and/or to humans via the environment.
Issue
Canada’s Ranking / Total Number of Countries
(1 = best)
Messages
Environmental State
Environmental Pressures
global
OECD
measures
global
OECD
measures
Air Quality
27/146
9/29
Outdoor NO2, SO2, TSP concentrations, indoor air quality
126/146
15/29
NOx, SO2, VOC emissions; coal consumption; vehicles per populated
area
Canada’s air quality is above average in the OECD, but there
is room to improve our air emissions performance.
Water Quality
5/146
5/29
Conductivity; phosphorus, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen concentrations
69/144
5/29
Fertilizer consumption per hectare arable land
Canada’s water quality is among the best in the world, although
its aggregated measurement is not robust.
Water Quantity
11/145
3/29
Freshwater availability per person
137/145
28/29
Water withdrawals per person
Canada has lots of water, so we use a lot of water.
4/28
Withdrawals as % of availability
Biodiversity
42/146
4/29
Threatened territory and species
53/146
3/29
Territory with very low human impact
The limited data available shows Canada is better than average
with relatively low threats to biodiversity.
Climate Change
n/a
global issue
140/146
27/29
Carbon dioxide emissions per person
Canada’s carbon dioxide emissions are high relative to most
other countries.
Waste
n/a
14/102
16/29
Waste recycling rates
Canada has a relatively high rate of waste recycling globally,
but is below average in the OECD.
Details on measures included in the rankings are provided
in Annex 1. OECD comparisons do not include Luxembourg.
The Bottom Line: Compared to situations elsewhere in the world, most
assessments indicate that Canada’s environment is in very good
condition, although subjected to significant pressures from human activity.
Annex 1 – How Canada Compares on Environmental Issues
Measures Used in the Rankings
Data as reported in the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI),
except where noted.
Issues
Measures Combined in Ranking
Sources
Air Quality
state
• urban population weighted NO2, SO2 and Total Suspended
Particulate (TSP) concentration
•
Indoor air pollution from solid fuel use
OECD, UNHABITAT, WHO, EEA, WRI, CEISIN
pressure
• coal consumption per populated land area
•
anthropogenic NOx, SO2 and VOC emissions per populated area
•
vehicles in use per populated area
USEIA, UNFCCC, CIESIN
Freshwater availability
state
• freshwater availability per capita
Center for Environmental System Research, Kassel University
pressure
• water withdrawals per person
•
water withdrawals per available freshwater
Note: withdrawals = water taken from ground or surface water. If the water is
returned a surface water source, and used again downstream, the amount is counted
again the total.
(about 2/3 of withdrawals in Canada go to cooling in thermal power production.)
FAO, via WWF Living Planet Report; OECD 2004 Environmental Data
Compendium
Water Quality
state
• dissolved oxygen concentration
•
electricity conductivity
•
phosphorus concentration
•
suspended solids
Information on Canada’s water quality is fragmented.
GEMS, OECD, EEA
pressure
• fertilizer consumption per hectare arable land
World Bank Development Indicators
Biodiversity
state
• % of territory in threatened ecoregions
•
threatened bird/mammal/amphibian species as % of known respective
types of species
•
National Biodiversity Index
There is little data on biodiversity relative to the scope of the
issue.
IUCN, CIESIN – HII, CBD
pressure
Percent of territory (land + inland waters) having very low anthropogenic
impact:
•
human land uses
•
access from roads, railways or major rivers
•
electrical infrastructure
•
population density
CIESIN - HII
Climate Change
pressure
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2000)
•
carbon emissions per million US dollars GDP
•
carbon emissions per person
UN Statistics Division, Millennium Indicator Database, CO2 Information
Analysis Center.
Waste
pressure
Percent of solid waste recycled
OECD, UNHABITAT
Sources
CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity
CIESIN: Center for International Earth Science Information Network. HII
= Human Influence Index
EEA: European Environment Agency
FAO: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
GEMS: Global Environmental Monitoring System
OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Environmental
Data Compendium 2002
UNCDB: United Nations Statistics Division Common Database
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
UNFCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNHABITAT: United Nations Human Settlement Program
UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund
USEIA: United States Energy Information Agency
WHO: World Health Organization
WRI: World Resources Institute
2005 Environmental Sustainability Index Report
Produced by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the
Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia
University, in collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the
Joint Research Centre of the European commission. www.yale.edu/esi
WWF Living Planet Report 2004
Produced by the World Wildlife Fund, in collaboration with the UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre and the Global Footprint Network. http://worldwildlife.org/about/lpr2004.pdf (pdf
only)
