Analysis

View the most recent version.

Energy conservation

Rising energy costs and environmental concerns about the need to reduce energy consumption provide incentives for households to adopt energy conservation measures. Canadians spend a lot of money on energy, especially energy used to heat their homes. In 2006, for example, approximately 15% of an average household's annual expenditures was spent on energy used in the home, excluding fuel for motor vehicles. ¹ 

Controlling the temperature

Winters in Canada are generally long and cold, with the heating season lasting up to nine or ten months in some parts of the country. Thus, lowering the temperature by just a few degrees at certain times of the day is one way Canadians can reduce their energy consumption and home heating expenses. More than nine out of ten (92%) Canadian households reported having a thermostat in their dwelling (Table 1). Forty-two percent of these households had programmable thermostats, which was a slight increase from 2006 (40%).

The overall proportion of programmable thermostats that had been programmed was relatively unchanged at 84%. Households in Newfoundland and Labrador that had programmable thermostats were the most likely to not have programmed them, with 29% indicating they had not done so.

Winter temperatures

Regardless of the type of thermostat, during the winter 55% of households with one in their home lowered the temperature for the period while they slept. Households in Prince Edward Island were most likely to turn the temperature down (63%), while those in Manitoba were the least likely (49%).

Lowering the temperature during sleep periods was much more prevalent in households with a programmable thermostat that had been programmed than in households with a non-programmable thermostat or a programmable thermostat that was not programmed (70% compared to 47%). Among those households that had programmed their programmable thermostats, those in Newfoundland and Labrador were most likely to have programmed them to lower the temperature when the household was asleep (79%), while those in Quebec were the least likely (66%) to have done so. For non-programmable thermostats and programmable thermostats that were not programmed, households in Prince Edward Island were most likely to have lowered the temperature when asleep (59%) while those in Ontario were least likely (40%) to have done so.

Energy-saving light bulbs

In April 2007, the Government of Canada announced that it will introduce national standards for lighting efficiency by 2012. The phasing out of less energy-efficient lighting will result in lower energy consumption and thus lower greenhouse gas emissions. ² 

Respondents were asked about compact fluorescent light bulbs, fluorescent tube lights and halogen lights. Eighty-four percent of Canadian households reported that they had at least one type of energy-saving light in their home. In Newfoundland and Labrador the figure was notably lower than in any other province with 72% of households reporting they had at least one of these energy-saving light bulbs (Table 2).

Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) consume up to 75% less energy than traditional incandescent light bulbs and can last up to ten times longer. ³  The presence of CFLs in Canadian homes increased in 2007, with 69% of households reporting that they had at least one. Similar to the 2006 results, the uptake of CFLs by households in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia was relatively higher than the national rate.

Forty-six percent of Canadian households reported they had a fluorescent tube light, another type of energy-saving light. These lights were more commonly reported in Saskatchewan (55%), Manitoba (53%) and British Columbia (53%); and not as often in Newfoundland and Labrador (31%) and Quebec (36%).

Halogen lights are a type of incandescent light bulb that contain a halogen gas, which minimizes filament wear and results in a longer lifespan than that of a traditional incandescent light bulb. ⁴  Thirty-five percent of Canadian households reported having halogen lights in 2007. Households in the Atlantic provinces were the least likely to have this type of energy-saving light bulb in their homes.

Water conservation

Environment Canada estimates that in 2004, the average individual used 329 litres of water per day. ⁵  Canadian households can make an effort to lower their total water use by installing more water-efficient fixtures such as low-volume toilets and low-flow shower heads and by observing common water-saving practices around the house.

Low-flow shower heads

Low-flow shower heads use up to 70% less water than standard shower heads and can save approximately 15% on the cost of heating the water. ⁶  In 2007, 62% of Canadian households reported they had a low-flow shower head, which was up from 2006 (54%). Households in Ontario (65%) were most likely to have had a low-flow shower head while those in Saskatchewan (46%) were least likely to have had one (Table 3).

Low-volume toilets

The volume of water a toilet uses per flush can be reduced either through design, as in a low-volume toilet, or by adding a brick or weighted plastic bottle to reduce the amount of water in the toilet tank. New low-volume toilets typically use less than 6 litres of water per flush, compared to older toilets that can use more than twice that amount.

Thirty-nine percent of Canadian households reported that they had a low-volume toilet in 2007, up from 34% in 2006 (Table 3). Provincially, 47% of households in Ontario and Alberta reported the presence of these toilets, while Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec trailed at 28% and 30%, respectively.

Water-conserving habits

Turning off the tap while brushing one's teeth or ensuring that a clothes washer is full before turning it on can also help reduce the amount of water used. The majority of Canadian households (60%) reported that someone in the household always or often turned off the tap while brushing his or her teeth, with British Columbians leading the way (64%). A further 25% reported they sometimes or rarely turned off the tap while brushing their teeth and 13% reported they never turned off the water while brushing their teeth (Table 3).

Of the 94% of households that reported they had a clothes washing machine in 2007, most (87%) reported that they always or often ensured that the machine was full before turning it on. Eleven percent reported they sometimes, rarely or never ensured it was full prior to operation.

Water supply

Water availability and water quality are ongoing issues of interest to Canadians. Canadians are concerned about how the environment affects their health, and thus about the quality of the water they drink. ⁷  Understanding how Canadians perceive the quality of their drinking water supply and the resulting behaviours in response to those concerns is important to both policy and decision makers.

Household water source

In 2007, 86% of Canadian households received their water from their city, town or municipality (Table 4). This varied substantially depending upon which province they lived in. Households in British Columbia and Saskatchewan were most likely (91% and 90%, respectively) to have had their water provided by their municipality. In Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, household water supply was almost equally distributed between municipal and non-municipal sources.

Drinking water decisions

In 2007, 59% of Canadian households reported drinking mainly tap water while three out of ten households drank primarily bottled water. The remaining ten percent of households reported drinking both types of water equally. When considering the source of water (municipal versus non-municipal), tap water consumption was slightly higher for those households with water from a non-municipal supply than those with a municipal supply (61% compared to 59%, respectively) (Table 5).

Water testing

Most Canadian households have safe, clean drinking water available to them, whether it is from a municipal source or a private source. ⁸  Households with private water supplies often test their water to make sure it is safe to drink. In 2007, 35% of households that had a non-municipal water supply tested their drinking water, which was unchanged from 2006. Of those that did test their water, 87% reported that no problems were found, a figure which was up slightly from 2006 (Table 6).

Water treatment

Regardless of whether a household has had its water tested by a laboratory, some choose to treat their water before drinking it. Actual or perceived health risks such as bacterial contamination, the presence of metals or minerals and aesthetic reasons (appearance, taste, and odour) along with the desire to remove water treatment chemicals such as chlorine, were cited as reasons why they treated their water. Between 2006 and 2007, there was an overall increase in the proportion of households that treated their drinking water. It rose from 48% to 54% for households with a municipal water supply (Table 7), and from 45% to 49% for those with a non-municipal water supply (Table 8).

Households with a municipal water supply

Of the 54% of households with a municipal water supply that treated their water prior to drinking, 58% did so to improve its appearance, taste or odour (Table 9). Slightly more than half (51%) indicated they did so to remove water treatment chemicals such as chlorine. The perception of a problem due to bacterial contamination, whether actual or perceived, was reported by 43% of households. Four out of ten households treated their water to remove metals and minerals.

More than 7 out of 10 (73%) households in Manitoba reported that they treated their water to improve its appearance, taste or odour, while less than half the households in Newfoundland and Labrador (44%) did it for this reason. Households in Prince Edward Island were much more likely than households in the other provinces (70%) to treat their water to remove water treatment chemicals. Forty-four percent of households in Alberta and 42% of those in Quebec treated their water to remove metals and minerals. One half of the households in British Columbia treated their municipally-supplied water to address possible bacterial contamination. ⁹ 

Households with a non-municipal water supply

Households that had a non-municipal water supply were less likely (49%) to treat their water prior to drinking it than households that had municipally-supplied water (Table 10). Those that did treat their water were more likely to treat their water to remove metals and minerals (51%) than they were for any other reason. This was followed by aesthetic reasons such as appearance, taste or colour, at 42%. Treating water to address possible bacterial contamination was reported by slightly more than 3 out of 10 households (31%) and just 1 out of 10 (11%) households reported they treated their non-municipally supplied water to remove water treatment chemicals.

The national rate of households with a non-municipal water supply that treated their water for possible bacterial contamination was down slightly in most provinces compared to 2006. British Columbia was the exception to this trend with more households in the province reporting this reason (38%) than in the previous survey (31%).

Indoor environment

Canadians spend a large proportion of their time indoors, whether at home or at work. Therefore, the environmental quality of the indoor environment, including the indoor air, is important. There are many factors that influence the overall quality of the indoor environment, including the presence of certain chemicals and gases, some of which can impact human health.

Radon awareness and testing

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that is colourless, odourless and tasteless. It is formed by the breakdown of uranium, a natural radioactive material found in soil, rock and groundwater. Exposure to radon increases the risk of developing lung cancer. ¹⁰  Outdoors, it is diluted to low concentrations and is not a health concern. However, when radon enters an enclosed space, such as a home, it can sometimes accumulate to levels high enough to be of concern. ¹¹ 

Nationally, 41% of Canadian households were aware of radon gas and knew of its impact on human health (Table 11). However, this varied substantially from province to province. More than half of the households in Nova Scotia (55%), Saskatchewan (54%), and Manitoba (51%) indicated they were aware of it. In Quebec, 20% of households reported that they were aware of radon and the potential impacts of the gas on human health.

It is impossible to predict if any one house will have a high level of radon. The only way to know if radon is present in a dwelling is to test for it. ¹²  Among households that indicated they were aware of radon and knew of its impacts on human health, about one in ten (11%) had tested their home for its presence.

Cleaning and chemical products

Cleaning products and other household chemicals such as pesticides can all introduce substances into the home that can have adverse affects on the people who live there. Many cleaning products claim to be "natural","environmentally friendly", or "green". These products offer consumers options to "non-green" products.

Window cleaning products

Window cleaners were one of the most common cleaning products found in Canadian households in 2007. Ninety-five percent of Canadian households reported they had used some type of window cleaning product (Table 12).

Just over seven out of ten households used a commercial chemical product to clean their windows. Commercial chemical window cleaners were most likely to have been used in Atlantic Canada, especially by households in Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island (83%). Households in British Columbia were least likely to use them (65%).

Biodegradable window cleaning products, including vinegar, were used in almost half of Canadian households (46%). They were most frequently used in Saskatchewan (49%), Quebec (48%), and Alberta (47%). Households in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia were among the lowest users of biodegradable window cleaners at 39%, 43%, 43% and 44%, respectively.

Other household chemical products

Stove degreasers and cleaners, solvents and indoor pesticides are other common household chemical products. Fifty-seven percent of Canadian households reported using at least one of these products (Table 13). Stove cleaners and degreasers, the most frequently reported product, were used by 41% of households. Solvents, such as paint thinners, were used by 22% of households while indoor pesticides were used by 15%.

The use of these products did vary slightly from province to province. For example, half of the households in Newfoundland and Labrador used stove degreasers and cleaners, while only 39% of households in Nova Scotia and 35% of British Columbia households reported using them. The use of solvents was fairly consistent from province to province, with Prince Edward Island reporting the highest rate (27%) and Quebec reporting the lowest rate of use (20%).

Unlike solvents, indoor pesticide use did vary substantially at the provincial level. At 23%, households in Nova Scotia were most likely to have used them. Households in Quebec, on the other hand, were least likely to have used them (10%). This low rate of use may be a side-effect of the province-wide ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides.

Furnace filters

Just over half of Canadian households (53%) reported having a forced air furnace as the primary heating system in their dwelling in 2007. Regular maintenance of a forced air furnace system includes periodic cleaning or replacement of the furnace filters. Available in several different varieties, the furnace filter was originally designed to protect the furnace and fans, but it has evolved to reduce exposure to particles that can affect one's health. These particles include dust from a variety of sources such as smoking, burning candles, cooking, and doing laundry; hair and skin flakes from people and pets; and particles from the outside air. The main health risk comes from respirable particles from tobacco smoke, as well as spores, bacteria and viruses. ¹³  In order to effectively remove substances from the air, furnace filters need to be changed on a regular basis. ¹⁴ 

In 2007, most households (66%) changed their furnace filters at least every six months, with 4 out of 10 replacing them once every three months or more often (Table 14). Twenty-two percent changed their furnace filters once during the previous year, while 5% had not changed their furnace filters in the last year. Six percent of households that had a forced air furnace did not know when the filter was last changed.

Frequency of replacement differed from province to province. Households in the Prairie provinces and in Ontario were more likely to replace their furnace filters every three months or more often, compared to the rest of the country.

Pesticides and fertilizers

The debate over the use of lawn and garden fertilizers and pesticides continued in 2007. ^15 , 16  Municipal governments discussed, proposed or enacted legislation banning the use of some or all cosmetic lawn care products in their jurisdictions. ¹⁷ 

Pesticide use

Overall, 33% of non-apartment households that had a lawn or garden applied a pesticide ¹⁸  (chemical or organic) to their lawn or garden (Table 15). Households in the three Prairie provinces were the highest users of pesticide products (Saskatchewan: 48%; Manitoba: 47%; Alberta: 47%).

Nationally, 25% of non-apartment households that had a lawn or garden used a chemical pesticide. This is 4 percentage points lower than in 2006. ¹⁹  Of all the provinces, Quebec showed the largest decrease in the usage of pesticides, with only 4% of non-apartment households reporting that they had applied a chemical pesticide to their lawn or garden. When considering the use of either chemical or organic pesticides, slightly less than 1 household in 5 in Quebec (19%) used them.

Canada-wide, 12% of non-apartment households that had a lawn or garden used organic pesticides, such as beneficial nematodes. Households in Quebec led the way in their use (16%), followed by British Columbia (13%).

Herbicides were the most commonly used category of pesticide in 2007. Weed killer was applied to lawns and gardens by 80% of the non-apartment households that applied chemical pesticides. Twenty-nine percent of households in Canada that applied chemical pesticides applied a chemical insecticide to their lawn or garden. Households in Prince Edward Island were most likely to have applied them (60%). Households in the Prairie provinces were the highest users of chemical herbicides, but were also the lowest users of chemical insecticides.

Fertilizer use

Over half of Canadian non-apartment households (51%) that had a lawn or garden applied fertilizer to their lawn or garden. Twenty-seven percent used a chemical fertilizer, while 34% used a natural or organic fertilizer such as compost, manure, mulch or products labelled as 'natural' or 'organic.' Eighteen percent applied chemical fertilizers exclusively, while 24% reported they used only organic or natural fertilizers (Table 16).

Eight percent of households in Quebec used chemical fertilizers, while more than 4 out of 10 (44%) used organic or natural fertilizers. Four percent of Quebec households used only chemical fertilizers, while 41% reported they used organic or natural fertilizers exclusively.

Application of pesticides and fertilizers

Pesticides and fertilizers can be applied either as part of a regular maintenance schedule, or to address a specific issue such as the presence of crabgrass or grubs.

Canadian households that applied pesticides in 2007 were more likely to have applied them to address specific problems (61%) than they were to have applied them as part of a regular maintenance schedule (39%) (Table 17). The application of organic pesticides was more evenly split between the two strategies, with 54% of households reporting that they applied them to address specific problems and 45% reporting that they applied them on a regular maintenance schedule.

Fertilizer users tended to apply these products to their lawns or gardens themselves (76%), while 23% reported they used the services of a lawn care company (Table 16). Similarly, pesticides were more likely to have been applied by a member of the household (70%) than by a lawn care company (27%) (Table 17).

Poor air quality advisories: awareness and responses

Air quality affects everyone, but those with respiratory diseases, such as asthma and emphysema, are especially affected. When air quality deteriorates past acceptable levels, government-issued advisories are relayed through local press, radio and television. These air quality advisories indicate the severity of the issue and recommended actions to take.

In 2007, 34% of Canadian households were aware of a poor air quality advisory ²⁰  issued in their area (Table 18). This varied across the country, as some regions are more susceptible to high concentrations of atmospheric pollutants than others. For example, there was a relatively high degree of awareness among Ontario households (58%), compared to those in Nova Scotia (9%) and Alberta (10%).

More than half of those households did not modify their behaviour or their planned activities. Of those that did change their behaviour or revise their planned activities in response to an air quality advisory, the majority (77%) opted to stay indoors (Table 19). Refraining from exercising outside (45%), turning air conditioners on and/or up (21%) and not using gas-powered equipment (19%) were other common responses.

Purchasing decisions

Organic foods

People choose to eat organically produced foods for a variety of reasons. ²¹  Some perceive organic foods to be a healthier choice, while others choose them for environmental reasons. Regardless of why people choose to eat organic food, both the market share and the number of producers of organic food have been on the rise in Canada. ²² 

Five percent of Canadian households reported they always purchased organic foods, while 45% percent reported that they often or sometimes purchased them. The remaining 48% reported that they rarely or never purchased organic foods, with more than half of households in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador reporting that they rarely or never purchased organic food products.

Reusable grocery bags

Canadian shoppers have the option of using a reusable or recycled bag or container to carry their groceries instead of disposable plastic bags. The disposable plastic shopping bag, although convenient, has its share of detractors from an environmental standpoint. Many retailers have aimed to reduce the use of plastic bags by offering reusable bags as alternatives, or charging a fee for the disposable bags. Some countries, such as Ireland, ²³  Switzerland ²⁴  and Belgium,  ²⁵  have introduced steep levies to discourage the use of non-reusable bags. In April 2007, Leaf Rapids, Manitoba became the first Canadian municipality to ban them outright. ²⁶ 

Nationally, 30% of Canadian households reported that they always used recycled or reusable bags when doing their grocery shopping. Ontario and Quebec (35% and 33%, respectively) led the provinces in the proportion of households reporting that they always used reusable or recycled bags or containers to carry their groceries. A further 41% of households reported often or sometimes using them. Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia reported a greater proportion of households that rarely or never used these types of bags or containers (46%, 43% and 42%, respectively).