They’re also their respective country’s top jurisdictions when it comes to green leadership, according to Corporate Knights’ 2014 Green Provinces and States Report Card.

This is the first year Corporate Knights has ranked both Canadian provinces and U.S. states, a move that reflects the magazine’s increasingly North American – indeed, global – voice. In doing so, the ranking methodology was streamlined to capture roughly comparable provincial- and state-level data from both countries.

Whereas our 2012 provinces report card relied on 35 indicators across seven categories, we decided in 2014 to only use 10 key performance indicators (KPIs) across six categories – air and climate, water, nature, transportation, waste, energy and buildings.

Many of the indicators used in the past were redundant or did not add much value to the analysis. In other words, more was not necessarily better. The 10 KPIs used in this year’s ranking hit the mark more accurately. Together, they reflect in a much simpler way provincial and state progress on reducing greenhouse gases, air pollution, water consumption, production of waste and impacts on nature.

In some cases, such as the number of kilometres driven or water consumed, we took absolute numbers and ranked jurisdictions on a per-capita basis. In other cases, such as GHGs, air pollution and waste, we ranked jurisdictions by how much economic output has been achieved per unit of pollution or emission or waste. (Note that all imperial measurements were converted to metric, and U.S. dollars converted to Canadian currency.)

Other indicators were broken down and ranked by percentage – for example, the percentage of land and water protected in a jurisdiction or renewable electricity generated as a percentage of overall generation.

East vs. West Coast

Using this approach, B.C. and California emerged as clear leaders. Bridging them along the West Coast were Oregon and Washington, which both ranked among the Top 10 U.S. states for having a high mix of renewables on their grids, relatively low pollution levels and leading waste diversion rates.

The northeast, however, also dominated. Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, which announced in April it had finished phasing out coal for electricity generation, scored much higher than their inland counterparts in Western Canada and the prairies, while New York, Maryland and New England states Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut made up the rest of the U.S. Top 10.

The poorest performers? Deep South states, such as Alabama and Louisiana, distinguished themselves as among the heaviest drivers, poorest recyclers, least efficient energy users and greatest emitters of greenhouse gases. Of note among these was Mississippi, which ranked as the least green state in America.

Similar observations were made for Tornado Alley states Nebraska and Oklahoma and their Midwestern neighbour North Dakota, all three of which ranked among the bottom 10.

In Canada, the provinces Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Alberta also landed at the bottom for their poor energy productivity, dependence on fossil fuels and resulting high GHG emissions.

Bonus Points

Recognizing that performance data alone does not capture the whole picture,Corporate Knights created the opportunity for states and provinces to earn bonus points for having green policies designed to drive change. Bonus points, up to a maximum of 10, were awarded to jurisdictions with one or more of the following:

• A feed-in tariff (FIT) or renewable portfolio standard (RPS) program designed to drive investment in grid-connected green power projects;

• Mandatory e-waste recycling regulation;

• A climate plan with meaningful emission-reduction targets;

• A carbon tax or active membership in a carbon cap and trade program;

• Jurisdiction-wide mandatory energy reporting requirement for commercial buildings (half point given where one major city in a jurisdiction has mandatory reporting);

• Enables legislation for municipalities to use local improvement charges (LICs) to support financing programs (such as PACE or PAPER) for property owners looking to pursue renewable energy or energy-efficiency projects;

• Jurisdictional program for issuing green bonds that finance climate-friendly public infrastructure projects;

• Jurisdictional accounting that integrates natural capital stocks and flows;

• Policies that drive green building operations and construction, measured by LEED building square footage per capita;

• Policies that drive sustainable forestry, measured by percentage of FSC-certified forests in a jurisdiction.

Bonus points were added to each jurisdiction’s ranking score to determine a final score. Fittingly, California received the most bonus points – a total of nine out of 10 – followed by New York with eight points and Minnesota, Massachusetts and Maryland with seven points each. In Canada, fourth-ranking Ontario was tops with seven bonus points, followed by Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta at five points each.

Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, North Dakota and South Dakota were the only U.S. states that received zero bonus points. In Canada, no province received zero, but Saskatchewan was lowest with only one bonus point earned. Of all bonus categories, in only one category did all provinces and states get zero – i.e. for their lack of natural capital accounting.

Click here to go back to the ranking landing page.

The post 2014 Green Provinces & States appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The motto for Canada’s most western province is splendor sine occasu, which translated from Latin means “splendour without diminishment.”

As a guiding principle, it couldn’t be more appropriate for British Columbia. For Canadians, the province is both a gateway to the Pacific Ocean and a place to cherish the greatest hits of nature, from the ruggedness of the Rocky Mountains to its oxygen-rich ancient forests and the biodiversity they nurture.

Not to suggest B.C. has no blemishes. Logging, mining, fossil fuel exploration and other industrial activities have left their combined mark on Canada’s third-most populous province. But when compared to its provincial cousins, B.C.’s splendour is comparatively least diminished.

That’s why Corporate Knights ranked B.C. as 2014’s greenest province. It stands out for having the highest density of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations per capital and the highest percentage of protected land. British Columbians also drive the fewest kilometres per capita – 38 per cent less than worst-ranked Alberta.

But B.C. also performed well because it scored consistently high across most of the key performance indicators used in this year’s ranking. It is the third-most economically efficient user of energy and emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, and it has the third-highest rate of municipal solid waste diversion in the country. Waste and air pollution produced per unit of economic output were also among the lowest.

It didn’t score so well on our water indicator, however. B.C. residents are the fourth-highest users of water per capita, nearly twice as thirsty as best-ranked Prince Edward Island.

As for bonus points, B.C. tied Nova Scotia and Alberta for second place with a total number of five out of 10. Ontario earned the highest number with seven.

One likely contributor to B.C.’s top-notch performance is a carbon tax it introduced in July 2008. It’s estimated that CO2-equivalent emissions from gasoline consumption fell in the province by 3.5 million tonnes in the four years after the B.C. carbon tax was enacted, according to a study from researchers at the University of Ottawa.

Another study, by Ottawa-based think tank Sustainable Prosperity, found that B.C.’s per capita consumption of fuels just four years after the carbon tax was introduced declined by 19 per cent compared to the rest of Canada. It stands to reason that air pollution associated with the burning of fossil fuels also fell as a result of the carbon tax – all with little, if any, negative economic or political impacts.

“The implementation of British Columbia’s carbon tax is as near as we have to a textbook case,” Angel Gurria, Secretary-General of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, said in a speech last October.

The bigger question is what’s next? B.C.’s carbon tax began with a rate of $10 per tonne of CO2 or equivalent GHG emissions, and has climbed to $30 as of July 2012.

But some observers, such as University of Ottawa law and economics professor Stewart Elgie, say there appears little political will at the moment to raise the tax further. Another problem, he cites, is that the carbon tax currently exempts fugitive emissions – such as methane leaks – from the oil and gas sector.

This latter point is important, considering how determined the B.C. government is to turn the province into a natural gas powerhouse. The province has hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas locked away in various land formations, which can be extracted through a combination of traditional and alternative drilling methods, increasingly involving hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” techniques that can also threaten freshwater resources.

To get that gas to foreign markets, the current Liberal government is pushing for the construction of at least three liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities within the next six years – and up to seven over the coming decade. These facilities, in addition to the expected wave of new gas development, are expected to substantially increase B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Much of those emissions would not be subject to B.C.’s carbon tax, as currently designed.

“From fracking to liquefaction, each point along the supply chain would produce carbon pollution,” according to the Pembina Institute, a Calgary-based energy think tank. It estimates that emissions from the industry could reach 73 tonnes by 2020, which is nearly three-quarters of projected emissions from Alberta’s oil sands. “The potential carbon pollution from the LNG facilities and associated shale gas extraction and processing would make B.C.’s climate targets unachievable,” Pembina has warned.

There are other, smaller signs that B.C., after making so much progress, is getting knocked off course. For example, a rebate program designed to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles expired in March. That program, which offered a rebate of up to $5,000, is not expected to return, despite a pledge by the B.C. government to have EVs represent 10 per cent of new vehicles – in both public and private fleets – by 2016.

Clearly, B.C. has reason today to celebrate being Canada’s greenest province. That it will keep that crown by the time our next green report card comes out is not so certain.

Click here to go back to the ranking landing page.

The post Top province profile: B.C. appeared first on Corporate Knights.

It pays to start early. That’s the lesson California has taught the rest of America on the issues of environment and clean energy. The Golden State has consistently exceeded federal environmental standards since the 1940s. In 1947, for example, it established the first air pollution control districts in the United States.

Getting a head start has its advantages. Back then, such policies were less politicized, and once in place, they built momentum that other states have since had difficulty replicating.

The results are indisputable. California’s electricity use per capita is the lowest in the country and, after adopting the greenest building codes of any state, its performance is expected only to improve. It has relentlessly pushed fellow U.S. states and the federal government to tighten CO2 emission standards, and has become a national hub of clean technology research and investment.

The importance of this cannot be understated. California, with a GDP of $2.25 trillion (Canadian), is not just America’s largest state economy – 43 per cent larger than second-place Texas – but also the world’s ninth-largest economy with a GDP rivalling that of Russia.

“California’s example shows how public intervention and private initiative can, at a sub-national level of government, push forward the agenda on green growth,” according to a 2012 report from the World Bank. “The state has lifted up the environmental standards of the entire U.S. and even other countries that want to do business in this most populous and wealthy part of the U.S.”

So it makes absolute sense that Corporate Knights would rank California as 2014’s greenest state. With more than half of its municipal solid waste avoiding landfills, California is the top waste diverter in the country. It also ranked in the Top 5 for being economically efficient with energy use and for releasing the least amount of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution per unit of economic activity.

According to the California Air Resources Board, air pollutants that cause smog have been cut by more than half over the past two decades even as the state’s population grew. And California is committed through its Global Warming Solutions Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below those levels by 2050.

Helping it to achieve that goal is a mandate to get 33 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2020. “If the rest of the United States had done what California has over the past 40 years, the world might be well on the way to slowing climate change,” wrote journalist Mark Hertsgaard in Yale University’s online magazine Environment 360.

As California’s electricity mix gets cleaner, so too do the electric vehicles plugging into its grid. The home of Tesla Motors, California has become the centre of America’s electric vehicle boom, having one of the highest densities of EV charging stations in the nation. Only Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and District of Columbia have higher concentrations per capita. Despite strong resistance from automakers, new rules require that 15 per cent of vehicles sold in California by 2025 be classified as “zero emission.”

States ranked by Corporate Knights had a chance to earn up to 10 bonus points to help boost their final score. On that front, California got an impressive nine out of 10 for having green policies such as a renewable portfolio standard, a cap-and-trade program, an e-waste recycling law and mandatory building energy reporting.

Its weak points have to do with household waste production and water use. While tops at diverting waste from landfills, California is the ninth biggest producer of municipal solid waste per capita. It also has the 15th highest per-capita domestic use of water.

On water, the fact that California is experiencing one of its worst droughts on record – a dry spell some studies have directly linked to climate change – means the state will have to do better. Already struggling with an increase in forest fire activity in recent years, the hot, dry weather and chronic lack of rain promises to make this season even more volatile, authorities are saying.

The situation, in turn, could lead to an increase in air pollution. An April report from the California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association warned that increased smoke from wildfires and smog from the rising number of extreme heat days could erase decades of air quality improvements.

It’s a discouraging reminder that local actions, while demonstrating leadership that others should follow, can’t shield from the impacts of a global problem.

Severin Borenstein, director of the UC Energy Institute at University of California, Berkeley, says it may be time for the state to reposition its climate strategy. Rather than just focus on its own emissions, it needs to put more resources into helping others reduce emissions.

“The primary goal of California climate policy should be to invent and develop the technologies that can replace fossil fuels, allowing the poorer nations of the world – where most of the world’s population lives – to achieve low-carbon economic growth,” Borenstein wrote on his blog in April.

“If we can do that, we can avert the fundamental risk of climate change. If we don’t do that, reducing California’s carbon footprint won’t matter.

Click here to go back to the ranking landing page.

The post Top state profile: California appeared first on Corporate Knights.

With this in mind, it was decided this year to expand our green report card beyond Canadian provinces by also doing a separate report on 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia. To do this required a streamlining of our methodology to capture comparable data from both countries. Whereas in our 2012 provinces report card we used 35 indicators across seven categories – air and climate, water, nature, transportation, waste, energy and buildings and innovation – we decided in 2014 to only use 10 key performance indicators (KPIs) across six categories (i.e. we excluded innovation this time around). We realized, in retrospect, that many of the indicators used in the past didn’t accurately capture performance and progress toward “greening” a jurisdiction, and that simple in this case translated into better. These 10 KPIs reflect provincial and state progress on reducing greenhouse gases, air pollution, water consumption, production of waste and impacts on nature.

In some cases, such as the number of kilometres driven or water consumed, we took absolute numbers and ranked jurisdictions on a per-capita basis. In other cases, such as GHGs, air pollution and waste, we ranked jurisdictions by how much economic output has been achieved per unit of pollution or emission or waste (Note: all U.S. figures were converted to metric). Other indicators were broken down and ranked by percentage – i.e. the percentage of land and water protected in a jurisdiction or renewable electricity generated as a percentage of overall generation.

Scoring:

To create a comparable scoring system we started by reverse-ranking how jurisdictions performed on each indicator. In Canada (10 provinces) the best ranking position was considered to be 10 and the worst 1; in the U.S. best ranking was 51 and worst 1.

Once ranking positions were given for each of the 10 KPIs, we simply added those together. In the case of Canada (10 provinces) a perfect score would be 100. In the case of the United States (50 states and one district) a perfect score would be 510. To make U.S. scores more comparable to Canada, we divided all scores by 5.1 so results were also out of 100.

Click here to access a spreadsheet of the full results

Bonus Points

· Feed-In Tariff (FIT) or Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program.

· Mandatory e-waste recycling rules.

· Meaningful climate plan.

· Meaningful carbon tax or participation in a carbon cap & trade program.

· Jurisdiction-wide mandatory energy reporting requirement for commercial buildings. (Half point given where one major city in a jurisdiction has mandatory reporting).

· Law that enables municipalities to use local improvement charges (LICs) to support financing programs (such as PACE or PAPER) for property owners looking to pursue renewable energy or energy-efficiency projects.

· Jurisdictional program for issuing green bonds that finance climate-friendly public infrastructure projects.

· Jurisdictional accounting that integrates natural capital stocks and flows.

· Policies that drive green building operations and construction, measured by LEED building square footage per capita.

· Policies that drive sustainable forestry, measured by percentage of FSC-certified forests in a jurisdiction.

Total bonus points for a jurisdiction are added to the pre-bonus ranking score to determine a FINAL SCORE.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

NOTE: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and population numbers from 2012 were used, where necessary, in calculations. All dollars in Canadian currency and all volumes, weights, distances and energy measurements converted to metric.

ENERGY

Two KPIs fall under the energy category. The first is primary energy productivity. This indicator gives a sense of how efficiently energy is being used in the economy or by the population of a jurisdiction. For Canada, we calculated how many dollars of GDP result from each million British thermal units of primary energy consumed in a province. For the United States we used a per capita measurement, as relatively recent per capita numbers were available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

U.S. Source: Energy Information Administration, 2011 numbers

https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=MT#series/12

Canadian Source: National Energy Board, 2011 numbers

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/nrgyftr/2013/ppndcs/pxprmrydmnd-eng.html

The second energy indicator was renewable power as a percentage of overall power generation in a jurisdiction. We included hydropower, geothermal, wind, solar (PV and thermal), and biomass-based electricity generation.

U.S. Source: Energy Information Administration, 2012 numbers, taken from the report “Net Generation by State by Type of Producer and Energy Source” (EIA-906, EIA-920, and EIA-923)

Canadian Source: Statistics Canada, 2012 numbers

AIR & CLIMATE

Two KPIs compose the air and climate category. The first is carbon productivity, calculated as dollars of GDP for every million tonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions. This climate indicator favours jurisdictions what are both efficient with energy use and have lower-carbon energy sources.

U.S. Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2011 numbers

https://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/CO2FFC_2011.pdf

Canadian Source: Environment Canada, National Inventory Report, 1990-2011

https://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/CO2FFC_2011.pdf

The second KPI in this category is air pollution productivity, calculated as dollars of GDP for every kilotonne of smog-causing sulfur and nitrogen oxides, as well particulates (10 and 2.5 micrometre combined). This air pollution indicator also offers insight into energy mix and how efficiently energy is being used. To make U.S. and Canadian data more comparable, we only counted pollution from mobile, industrial and fuel combustion sources. In the case of nitrogen oxides, we also included biogenic sources. For particulates, we made sure to exclude forest fires and dust measurements.

We determined how many dollars of GDP resulted from a kilotonne of each of these three air pollutants. We then averaged the three results to come up with a final air pollution ranking (score) for each jurisdiction.

U.S. Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2011 numbers

https://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/where.htm

Canadian Source: Environmental Canada, 2011 numbers

https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=58DE4720-1#prov

WASTE

Two KPIs compose the waste category. The first is waste productivity, calculated as dollars of GDP for every kilotonne of municipal solid waste produced in a jurisdiction. This indicator gives insight into how efficiently goods are being made (i.e. less waste during manufacturing, less packaging, etc.) and consumed (i.e. goods being used longer, etc.)

U.S. Source: 17th Nationwide Survey of MSW Management in the U.S., a collaboration between Biocycle and the Earth Engineering Center at Columbia University, 2008 data. https://www.biocycle.net/images/art/1010/bc101016_s.pdf(Used “Estimated MSW Generation” column).

Canadian Source: Statistics Canada, 2010 numbers.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/envir32a-eng.html

(NOTE: for PEI used Island Waste Management Corporation annual report 2012 —https://www.iwmc.pe.ca/pdfs/2012AnnualReport.pdf)

The second KPI in this category is the rate of waste diversion, which is the percentage of municipal solid waste that is diverted away from landfill through recycling and composting. For the U.S. rate, MSW used for energy-from-waste facilities was excluded. This indicator demonstrates how successfully municipalities, guided by provincial or state policy, are keeping waste out of landfills through recycling of metals, glass, plastics and paper, and the composting of organics waste.

U.S. Source: 17th Nationwide Survey of MSW Management in the U.S., a collaboration between Biocycle and the Earth Engineering Center at Columbia University, 2008 data.

https://www.biocycle.net/images/art/1010/bc101016_s.pdf

Canadian Source: Statistics Canada, 2010 numbers.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/envir32a-eng.htm

(NOTE: for PEI had to use 2006 figure from Statistics Canada, which was most recent data available)

WATER

We used only one indicator for the water category — domestic water use per capita, calculated as the amount of water delivered through public supply for domestic (residential) consumption divided by the population of a jurisdiction. Because of regional differences that influence water consumption – e.g. agricultural use in one area versus industrial use in another – it was decided that a domestic-only metric was most fair for the purpose of jurisdictional comparison. This indicator offers insight into how efficiently households are consuming publicly delivered water.

U.S. Source: U.S. Geological Survey, “Estimated Use of Water In the United States in 2005”, Circular 1344. (NOTE: Unfortunately 2010 data, to be released in 2014, was not available in time for this report).

https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/pdf/c1344.pdf (see page 20, Table 6, in Public Supply section in column titled “Public Supply Per Capita Use”)

Canada Source: Statistics Canada, 2009 survey data, Table 2, “Residential Water Use Per Capita” column.

https://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/publications/eau-water/COM1454/survey2-eng.htm

TRANSPORTATION

Two indicators compose the transportation category. The first is number of persons per public EV charging station. Corporate Knights believes that the adoption of electric vehicles reflects the desire of a jurisdiction to lower the carbon emissions of both its transportation fleet and its electricity system, as the climate-friendly characteristic of electric vehicles is intimately tied to the low-carbon nature of the electricity it consumes.

U.S. Source: U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center, numbers as of March 16, 2014.

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/stations_counts.html

Canadian Source: Supplied from Plug’n Drive database on request, numbers as of March 26, 2014.

The second indicator is vehicle kilometres driven per capita. While some jurisdictions have a more rural than urban population that gives them a disadvantage, provinces and states with lower kilometres per capita are more likely to have stronger public transit systems and residents are more likely embracing alternatives – and more likely lower carbon — modes of transportation.

U.S. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2011 numbers. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/vm2.cfm

Canadian Source: Transport Canada, 2009 numbers

https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/policy/Stats-Addend-2011-eng.pdf

A126 and A128 (2009)

NATURE

One indicator composes the nature category, calculated as the percentage of a jurisdiction’s land (including inland water bodies) protected by law. This indicator reflects efforts by a state or province to conserve natural areas for both public enjoyment and the preservation of biodiversity.

U.S. Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Protected Areas Data Portal, 2011 numbers

Canadian Source: Environment Canada, 2012 numbers

https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=B0C62685-1

Corporate Knights Notice and Disclaimer

This document and all of the information contained in it, including without limitation all text, data, graphs, charts (collectively, the “Information”) is the property of Corporate Knights Inc. known herein as “Corporate Knights” and is provided for informational purposes only. The Information may not be modified, reverse-engineered, reproduced or redisseminated in whole or in part without prior written permission from Corporate Knights.

The Information may not be used to create indexes, databases, risk models, analytics, software, or in connection with the issuing, offering, sponsoring, managing or marketing of any securities, portfolios, financial products or other investment vehicles utilizing or based on, linked to, tracking or otherwise derived from the Information or any other Corporate Knights data, information, products or services.

The user of the Information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of the Information. CORPORATE KNIGHTS DOES NOT MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION (OR THE RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED BY THE USE THEREOF).

Information containing any historical information, data or analysis should not be taken as an indication or guarantee of any future performance, analysis, forecast or prediction. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
None of the Information constitutes an offer to sell (or a solicitation of an offer to buy), any security, financial product or other investment vehicle or any trading strategy.

The Information may contain back tested data. Back-tested performance is not actual performance, but is hypothetical. There are frequently material differences between back tested performance results and actual results subsequently achieved by any investment strategy.

Constituents of Corporate Knights equity indexes or stock lists are listed companies, which are included in or excluded from the indexes or lists according to the application of the relevant methodologies. Accordingly, constituents in Corporate Knights equity indexes or lists may include Corporate Knights, clients of Corporate Knights or suppliers to Corporate Knights. Inclusion of a security within a Corporate Knights index or list is not a recommendation by Corporate Knights to buy, sell, or hold such security, nor is it considered to be investment advice.

Corporate Knights receives compensation in connection with licensing its indexes to third parties. Corporate Knights Inc.’s revenue includes fees based on assets in Index Linked Investments.
Any use of or access to products, services or information of Corporate Knights requires a license from Corporate Knights. Corporate Knights brands and product names are the trademarks, service marks, or registered trademarks of Corporate Knights and its subsidiaries in Canada, United States and other jurisdictions.

Click here to go back to the ranking landing page.

The post 2014 Report Card methodology appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Canada’s provinces and territories have clearly formed a peloton in the 2012 Corporate Knights Green Provincial Report Card, with Ontario and British Columbia leading the pack and Alberta and Saskatchewan struggling to keep up. But no one has yet broken away in the race to become Canada’s greenest province or territory.

We evaluated their environmental performance using a series of 35 indicators grouped into seven categories: air and climate, water, nature, transportation, waste, energy and buildings, and innovation. Building on previous CK green province reports, this year’s ranking methodology used the most current available data (ranging from 2008 to 2011). Much of it came through federal sources that allowed for direct comparisons between Canada’s 13 jurisdictions. One major source was Environment Canada’s new Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) database, which was just made publicly accessible last year.

Our aim is to give readers a snapshot of the environmental health and resource productivity of our provinces and territories, and in doing so give a sense of how serious each jurisdiction is in dealing with such challenges. As you read, it is important to note that these indicators are influenced not just by past provincial policy decisions, but also by municipal and federal policies. They also don’t reflect the impacts of relatively new policies and programs, which will no doubt affect the conclusions of future reports.

Here is a look at who’s leading the way in each category.

Air and climate

With a score of 87 per cent, the territory of Yukon secured top spot in this category by ranking first in four of nine indicators. Most notably, Yukon has reduced its greenhouse-gas emissions by 41.3 per cent between 1990 and 2009, greatly exceeding the Kyoto target of 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Per dollar of GDP it also has the lowest levels of fine particulate, mercury and chromium emissions.

Ontario, which scored 83 per cent, stood out as the top province by having the highest GDP per kilotonne of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted, and among the highest GDP per megatonne of GHG emissions. Ontario, like the Yukon, is the only other jurisdiction to achieve Kyoto compliance.

..

Water

Northwest Territories (N.W.T.) ranked first with a score of 80 per cent, taking top spot in half of the category indicators. Perhaps unsurprising for a sparsely populated jurisdiction, all monitored stations in N.W.T. were observed to have normal or high water quantity. Most impressive was N.W.T.’s water productivity. It had the highest GDP per litre of water use, with Alberta following closely behind.

The two provinces, however, with the highest overall score in this category were Saskatchewan and Manitoba, each scoring 78 per cent. They showed low counts of toxins released into water supplies and high rates per capita of secondary wastewater treatment.

..

Nature

The Yukon (82 per cent) and Alberta (81 per cent) scored significantly higher than others, each ranking first in two indicators. The Yukon ranked tops when it came to preserving the ecological integrity of its national parks. It also shared top spot with Alberta (and P.E.I.) by achieving greater than one visit per capita at its national parks in the 2010/2011 season.

Alberta – along with Quebec and Ontario – also had the highest percentage of forestland protected under the FSC-certified management indicator, with 5,656,930 hectares FSC-certified in 2010. B.C. has the most overall protected areas, followed closely by Alberta.

..

Transportation

Nunavut scored 95 per cent here, putting it far above all other provinces and territories. Kilometres driven per capita for both light duty (940.3 km) and heavy duty (62.7 km) vehicles were well below the national average of 9,069 km and 639.8 km, respectively. This may be partially explained by the lack of road and highway infrastructure in the territory. Only British Columbia came close to Nunavut’s transportation performance – at least with respect to heavy vehicles, which in the province travelled an average of 132.9 km per capita.

Manitoba and Newfoundland had the highest fuel efficiency for heavy duty vehicles, while Quebec and Nova Scotia had the most fuel-efficient light duty vehicle fleets.

..

Waste

With a score of 71 per cent Nova Scotia came out clearly on top, showing the highest efficiency in the area of waste disposal. The province earned $80,000 in GDP for every tonne of disposed waste, making it twice as efficient as lowest-ranking provinces Manitoba and Quebec. No data was available for the territories.

Nova Scotia also scored relatively well for its waste diversion efforts. The province diverted 308 kg of material per capita annually, exceeding the national average of 251 kg/capita diversion and well within striking distance of leaders B.C. and New Brunswick.

..

Energy and buildings

Many provinces and territories are struggling in this category and there is no clear front-runner. Overall winner B.C. scored a lacklustre 60 per cent. It didn’t get highest score in any single indicator but was relatively strong across most of them. It received 89 per cent of its electricity generation from a combination of hydroelectric, wind, solar and other renewables, and had a total of 9,820 grant applications for the ecoENERGY home retrofit program last year, working out to about 22 applications per 10,000 people – higher than the national average.

..

Innovation

On the other hand, B.C. was the clear leader in the category of innovation with an overall score of 93 per cent. It achieved a very high grade for both the amount of venture capital its green technology businesses are attracting and the number of cleantech companies per capita that call the province home. Between 2002 and 2011 venture capitalists have invested over $138 per capita in B.C.’s green startups; only Ontario comes close to this with an average investment of $80.50 per capita. With 160 cleantech companies in total at the end of 2011, B.C. also has one of the highest numbers of companies per capita.

..

Where do we go from here?

In at least one of the seven categories in our 2012 Green Provinces Report Card 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 excels in every category, similar to cyclists in le Tour. Some achieve 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.

There’s room to do so much better. CK has calculated that if all provinces and territories got the highest score in each of the seven categories measured in our 2012 report, the Canadian average would be 86 per cent, making our nation more than just an excellent student. Indeed, it would put 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 well-being.

Click here to go back to the ranking landing page.

The post Green provinces of Canada appeared first on Corporate Knights.

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.

Alberta:

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 second-lowest 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.

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.

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:

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 second-highest kilometres travelled per capita (provinces only) and has the lowest fuel efficiency in the country. Its national parks, meanwhile, score lowest on ecological integrity.

Ontario:

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.

Weaknesses:

Waste diversion per capita is below the national average. Among provinces, it has the lowest visits per capita to national parks. Its residential sector’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:

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:

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 province’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.

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:

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.

Prince Edward Island:

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.

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.

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 province’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.

The post Results for the 2012 Sustainable Provinces Report Card appeared first on Corporate Knights.