Analysis
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.
Water conservation
In 2009, Canadian households used 3,689 million cubic metres of water, 1 which accounted for 29.6% of all the water used in Canada. 2 This equates to 298 litres per person every day of the year. Water can be conserved using a variety of methods such as replacing old fixtures with more water-efficient ones. The use of rain barrels and cisterns to collect rainwater is another way households can reduce the amount of water they draw from their primary water source.
Indoor water conservation
Low-flow shower heads
Low-flow shower heads are relatively inexpensive devices that allow a household to reduce the amount of water used when someone takes a shower. Their uptake increased over the last two decades from 28% in 1991 to 63% in 2011 (Table 1), though the rate of increase flattened out in recent years. They were most likely to be found in households in Ontario (68%) and least likely to be found in households in Saskatchewan (42%).
Prince Edward Island was the only province with a statistically significant difference between the presence of low-flow shower heads when comparing households with municipally supplied water to those with non-municipal water supplies (47% and 70%, respectively).
Low-volume toilets
Toilets can be specially designed to use less water per flush, or they can be modified by placing a bottle in the tank or installing a dam, both of which effectively reduce the volume of the tank. The adoption of low-volume toilets by Canadian households has grown in the past two decades, with 47% of households in Canada reporting having a low-volume toilet in 2011 (Table 1), compared to 9% of households in 1991. Households in Ontario (53%) and Alberta (52%) were most likely to have had one, while those in Prince Edward Island (about 30%) and Newfoundland and Labrador (33%) were the least likely to have reported one.
The gap between households with low-volume toilets and non-municipal water supplies versus those with municipally supplied water narrowed to 2% in 2011 (49% and 47%, respectively), compared to 6% in 2009 (48% and 42%, respectively).
Outdoor water conservation
Sprinkler timers
Households can reduce their water consumption by controlling the amount of water that is used on lawns and gardens. Sprinkler timers are one method by which households can help achieve this goal.
Seventy percent of Canadian households 3 had a lawn in 2011 (Table 2). Of these households, 44% reported that they had watered their lawn in 2011. Sixty-four percent of these households indicated they used a sprinkler or sprinkler system, which is down from 72% in 2009. Of those households that used a sprinkler or sprinkler system, 31% used a timer, which is a slight increase from 2009 (27%). Sprinkler timers were most common in British Columbia and Quebec (49% and 47%, respectively).
In 2011, 61% of households reported having a garden or areas with trees, shrubs, flowers or vegetables outside the home. 4 Three-quarters of these households indicated that they watered these areas during 2011. Sprinklers and sprinkler systems were used by 23% of these households, of which 41% were connected to a timer, up slightly from 36% in 2009. As with lawn sprinkler timers, garden sprinkler timers were most commonly reported by households in Quebec (56% of households that used a garden sprinkler) and British Columbia (54%).
Rain barrels and cisterns
Rain barrels and cisterns collect the run-off of rain and melting snow from roofs. The collected water can then be used to water lawns and gardens and other uses that do not require the water to be potable. In 2011, 18% of non-apartment households 5 reported that they had a rain barrel or cistern (Table 2). They were most commonly used in Alberta (29%), Saskatchewan (26%) and Manitoba (26%). Non-apartment households in Newfoundland and Labrador were the least likely to have used a cistern or rain barrel, with about 7% of these households reporting one.
Water supply
Household water source
The majority of Canadian households (86%) were connected to a municipal water supply (Table 3). Households in Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta were most likely to have had their water provided by their municipality (93%, 92%, and 91%, respectively). New Brunswick saw the greatest increase in the proportion of households that had municipally supplied water, with it increasing to 56% in 2011 from 48% in 2009.
Drinking water decisions
Regardless of whether their water came from a municipal or non-municipal source, 68% of Canadian households drank primarily tap water in 2011 (Table 4). At the same time, the proportion of households that drank primarily bottled water continued to fall, with 22% reporting this in 2011. This was down from 24% in 2009 and 30% in 2007. At 9%, the proportion of households that reported they drank tap and bottled water equally was unchanged from 2009.
Households in Prince Edward Island were the most likely to drink primarily tap water (81%), while those in Quebec were the least likely (63%).
Households that had a non-municipal water supply were more likely to drink primary bottled water than those that had a municipal supply (27% compared to 22%).
Households in British Columbia that had municipally supplied water remained the most likely to drink primarily tap water (82%, up from 73% in 2009), while those in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec were the least likely (61% and 62%, respectively). Bottled water was most frequently reported as the primary type of drinking water by households with a municipal water supply in Newfoundland and Labrador (30%), New Brunswick (29%) and Quebec (28%).
Of the households that had non-municipal water supplies (66%), those in Prince Edward Island remained the most likely to drink primarily tap water (88%, up from 85% in 2009), while those in Saskatchewan remained the least likely (49%, unchanged from 2009).
Water testing
Health Canada recommends that households obtaining their water from private wells have their well water tested by a laboratory two to three times a year. 6 In 2011, 27% of households with a non-municipal water supply reported that they had had their water tested by a laboratory (Table 5). Of these households, about 9% indicated that a problem was found, compared to 14% in 2009.
Only 3% of households with municipal water supplies reported having had their water tested, in 2011. Of those households that had had their water tested, about 12% reported that a problem was found.
Care must be exercised when interpreting the problem rates for municipal and non-municipal supplies because respondents were not asked about the nature of the problems found. Testing is done for a variety of contaminants such as the presence of E. coli and other pathogens, and metals such as lead, arsenic or mercury. Other characteristics of water quality that may be tested for include hardness, colour and clarity. Though aesthetic problems such as hardness, colour and clarity may exist, whether they constitute a ’problem’ is left for the respondent to decide.
Water treatment
There are many reasons why a household may treat its water, including hardness, concerns about possible bacterial contamination, presence of metals and minerals, and to improve the aesthetic characteristics of the water (appearance, taste and odour). Overall, 50% of Canadian households treated their water prior to consumption, which is similar to 2009 (51%) (Table 6). Households in Newfoundland and Labrador were most likely to have treated their water prior to consumption (65%), while those in Quebec were the least likely, with 36% reporting this behaviour.
Jug filters were the most common method of treatment (33%), followed by on-tap filters and purifiers (20%), and filters and purifiers installed on the main pipe (11%). Households in Newfoundland and Labrador that primarily drank tap water were most likely to have just jug filters (54%) and on-tap filters and purifiers (34%), while households in Prince Edward Island were most likely to have reported using a filter or purifier on the main supply pipe (about 20%). Fourteen percent of households that drank primarily tap water reported they had boiled it to make it safe to drink, with households in Newfoundland and Labrador most likely to have done this (26%).
Methods of water treatment
Households can treat their water in different ways. The type of filter or purifier used usually depends on the type of water source.
A filter or purifier can be installed on the main pipe to filter all the water used in the dwelling. Typically, these tend to be more robust systems and are more common where a household has a non-municipal water supply. Inline filtration systems often consist of more than one type of filter or purifier connected in series to address a variety of problems that may exist. Some inline filters perform simple mechanical filtration to remove particulate matter like grains of sand, while others use ceramic filters or membrane filters that have very fine pores to filter the water. Some filtration and purification systems are able to remove minerals, metals and other contaminants from the water. Another type of purification system uses ultraviolet light to neutralize any pathogens that may be present.
On-tap filters and filtration systems integrated in appliances such as refrigerators, water coolers and coffee makers, usually use a carbon or activated charcoal filter to remove impurities that may be in the water. While often effective in improving the aesthetic qualities of the water (appearance, taste and odour), these filters tend not to be effective in removing E. coli, if present, but may be able to remove other pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia. 7
Jug filters are refillable pitchers that have an integrated filter cartridge. Water is added to a reservoir in the top of the pitcher and allowed to pass through the filter, usually an activated charcoal cartridge, before collecting in the main part of the jug.
Boiling water before using it is another common way to treat water. It is a very effective way to eliminate pathogens such as E. coli, Cryptosporidium and Giardia, but does not address other problems such as hardness and the presence of harmful metals such as lead and mercury.
Households with a municipal water supply
Municipally supplied water is required to meet provincial and territorial government quality requirements in terms of both health factors and aesthetic characteristics (appearance, taste and odour) and the vast majority of municipal systems consistently meet or exceed these guidelines. 8 Despite this, half of Canadian households that had municipally supplied water treated their water prior to using it, which is similar to 2009 (51%) (Table 7).
As was the case in 2009, jug filters remained the most common form of filtration device reported by households that drank primarily municipally supplied tap water, with 31% reporting the use of one. On-tap filters and purifiers, the next most common method of water treatment, were used by 17% of households that had a municipal water supply, which is unchanged from 2009. Five percent of households used a filter or purifier on the main supply pipe in their dwelling. Eleven percent of households that had municipally supplied water and drank primarily tap water reported that they had boiled it in order to make it safe to drink.
Provincially, households in Newfoundland and Labrador that had municipally supplied water were the most likely to have treated it prior to consumption (66%), while those in Quebec were the least likely to have done so (36%) (Table 7). Households in Newfoundland and Labrador were most likely to have had an on-tap filter (27%), while those in Prince Edward Island were most likely to have used a jug filter (50%). Had boiled water in order to make it safe to drink 9 was most frequently reported by households in British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador (both 17%).
Half of the households that treated their water reported they did so to improve its appearance, taste or odour (Table 8). Thirty-eight percent treated it to remove water treatment chemicals such as chlorine; fourteen percent treated their water to soften it, while slightly less than one quarter (23%) did so to remove metals or minerals other than for hardness. Thirty-two percent reported that they treated their municipally supplied water to remove possible bacterial contamination.
Households with a non-municipal water supply
The quality of water from non-municipal sources such as wells and surface sources (springs, lakes, rivers, dugouts, etc.), is not usually monitored as regularly as municipal water supplies are. Regardless of whether they tested their wells on a regular basis, 48% of households that obtained their water from non-municipal water sources treated it prior to consumption, which is similar to 2009 (49%) (Table 9).
Households in Manitoba that had non-municipal water supplies were most likely to have treated their water (60%), while those in Quebec were the least likely to have done so (36%).
Thirty-four percent of households with a non-municipal water supply used a filter or purifier on their main supply pipe. On-tap filters and jug filters were the next two most common forms of water treatment, with 15% and 14% of households, respectively, using these devices. About four percent of households that obtained their water from a non-municipal water source had boiled it in order to make it safe to drink (Table 9).
Of households that drew their water from a non-municipal source and treated it prior to consumption, 37% did so to improve its appearance, taste or odour (Table 10). Twenty-eight percent treated the water for hardness, while 37% treated it to remove metals or minerals other than those that cause hardness. Thirty-one percent treated their water prior to consumption to remove possible bacterial contamination.
Boil water advisories
Boil water advisories and orders
Boil water advisories and orders are issued by public health units or other responsible authorities when there is cause for concern about the quality of drinking water from a water supply. 10 Usually, they are issued for municipal water supply systems, but they are occasionally issued when surface or ground water sources that are known to be used for private water supplies are contaminated or at risk.
Contamination by pathogens such as E. coli and other bacteria is one reason boil water advisories are issued, but they are also issued as a precaution when planned or unplanned work is conducted on a municipal water supply system. Broken water mains can result in advisories and orders being issued for dwellings that receive their water from the affected pipe. A large number of residents in the city of Gatineau, Quebec found themselves under a boil water advisory for a few days in January 2011 as a result of a broken pipe at a drinking water reservoir. 11
Increases in suspended sediments (turbidity) can also result in boil water advisories and orders. In October 2011, the community of Sintaluta, Saskatchewan was under a boil water advisory issued as a precautionary measure due to elevated turbidity levels in the community’s water system. 12
Regardless of whether their water was municipally supplied or came from a private source such as a well, 11% of Canadian households had boiled it in order to make it safe to drink (Table 11). Although 7% of households were affected by a boil water advisory, not all of these households actually boiled their water in response to the advisory. Slightly more than half of the households that were subjected to a boil water advisory actually boiled their water (54%), 60% drank bottled water and 10% filtered their water. 13
Households that boiled their water and were affected by a boil water advisory made up 4% of all Canadian households, while households that boiled their water without being affected by a boil water advisory comprised 7% of all households.
Households with municipally supplied water were about four times as likely to have been subjected to a boil water advisory compared to households with private water supplies (8% and about 2%, respectively).
Waste water
In 2011, the majority of Canadian households (80%) lived in dwellings connected to a municipal sewer system, while 14% had a private septic system (Table 12). Whether a household reported having a sewer connection or a septic system usually depended on whether they had municipally supplied water or a private water source such as a well. Households in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were most likely to have had a private septic system, with 46%, 36% and 34%, respectively, having reported one, while fewer than 10% of households in Alberta and Saskatchewan reported having private septic systems.
Amongst households that had municipally supplied water, 91% were also connected to a municipal sewer system, while only 4% had a private septic system. Conversely, 87% of households that had a non-municipal water supply also had a private septic system, while 7% were connected to a municipal sewer system.
Energy use
In 2011, 13% of an average household’s annual expenditures on shelter were spent on energy used in the home, excluding fuel for motor vehicles. 14 Environmental concerns about energy consumption and rising energy costs may provide incentives for households to adopt energy conservation measures.
Heating and cooling
Controlling the temperature
In 2011, more than nine out of ten (92%) Canadian households reported having a thermostat in their dwelling (Table 13), which is a slight increase from 2009 (91%). Over half (54%) of these households had programmable thermostats, which is an increase of five percentage points from 2009 (49%).
The proportion of programmable thermostats that had actually been programmed to control temperature was similar to 2009 at 83%. Households in New Brunswick remained the least likely to have programmed their thermostats, with 69% indicating they had done so.
Winter temperatures
Six out of ten households that had a thermostat of any kind lowered the temperature during the winter while they slept (Table 13), which is similar to 2009 (61%). Households in Newfoundland and Labrador were most likely to turn the temperature down (70%), while those in New Brunswick and Ontario were the least likely to do so (55% and 57%, respectively).
Nearly three-quarters (73%) of households that had programmable thermostats, which had been programmed, reported the temperature was lowered when they were asleep. In contrast, 49% of households with a non-programmable thermostat, or a programmable thermostat that had not been programmed, lowered the temperature.
Among households that had programmed their programmable thermostats, those in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island were most likely to have programmed them to lower the temperature when the household was asleep (85%, 85% and 83%, respectively), while those in Ontario and New Brunswick (both 69%) were the least likely to have done so. Households in Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island that had non-programmable thermostats or programmable thermostats that had not been programmed were most likely to have lowered the temperature while asleep (69% and 62%, respectively), while those in Ontario remained the least likely (42%) to have done so.
Energy conservation
Energy-saving light bulbs
Conventional incandescent light bulbs are among the least energy-efficient light bulbs in use today. 15 There are a variety of alternative types of lights that can be used that require less energy to produce the same amount of light. Reductions in energy consumption can, depending on how the electricity was generated, also lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which play a role in global warming. Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), fluorescent tube lights, halogen lights and light-emitting diode (LED) lights are common types of energy-efficient lights. Eighty-seven percent of Canadian households reported that they had at least one of these lights in their home (Table 14).
Nationally, slightly more than three-quarters of households (76%) reported having at least one compact fluorescent light. Prince Edward Island led the way with 81% of households having one. Households in New Brunswick were the least likely to have had a CFL (69%).
The presence of fluorescent tube lights was reported by 40% of Canadian households, which is a drop of seven percentage points from 2009. More than half of all households in Manitoba (53%) reported having a fluorescent tube light, while only 29% of households in Newfoundland and Labrador and 30% of households in Quebec indicated they had one in their home.
Halogen lights have longer lifespans than conventional incandescent lights because they contain a halogen gas that minimizes filament wear. 16 Thirty-four percent of Canadian households reported having one of these lights, with 45% of households in Quebec indicating they had one.
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are extremely energy-efficient lights that come in a variety of forms, some of which are compatible with conventional light fixture sockets. Excluding LED holiday lights, 9% of households in Canada reported having an LED light in 2011, with households in British Columbia having the highest rate of uptake (13%).
Energy audits
An energy audit evaluates the energy efficiency of a home by looking at characteristics of the building envelope, including the walls, doors and windows. Various factors are assessed, including the air-tightness of the building and the R-value of the building’s insulation. Usually, a home energy audit will include a report that takes into consideration local climatic factors, thermostat settings and energy consumption.
In 2011, 13% of Canadian households reported that an energy audit had been conducted on their dwelling at some point in the past, 89% of which reported that it had been conducted in the preceding ten years (Table 15). Slightly more than two-thirds of households (68%) that had conducted an energy audit in the preceding ten years reported making modifications to their property as a result of the audit, with households in Saskatchewan being most likely to have done this (84%). Households in Quebec were among the least likely to have conducted an energy audit in the preceding ten years (81%) and the least likely to have modified their property as a result of an energy audit in the preceding ten years (43% of households that had conducted an energy audit in the preceding ten years).
Indoor environment
Radon
About radon
Radon is a radioactive gas found naturally in the environment everywhere. It is produced by the decay of uranium found in rocks and soil. Because radon is a gas, it can move freely through the soil enabling it to escape to the atmosphere or seep into buildings. Radon, which is invisible, odourless and tasteless, accounts for almost 50% of a person’s radiation exposure over their lifetime. 17
Outdoors, radon gas is diluted and does not pose a health risk. However, radon that enters an enclosed space, such as a home or building, can accumulate to levels where health impacts may be a concern. The risk from radon exposure is long term and depends on: the level of radon in the home or building, how long an individual is exposed to it and the individual’s smoking habits. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of radon increases the risk of developing lung cancer, especially for smokers. Based on the 2011 lung cancer statistics, 18 it is estimated that about 16% of all lung cancers in Canada are related to radon exposure, which equates to over 3,000 radon-induced lung cancer deaths.
The only way to know if radon levels in a home or building pose a health risk is to test for it. Test kits are available from many hardware stores and from organizations such as provincial lung associations. Health Canada encourages all Canadians to test their homes and recommends the use of a long-term test device for a minimum of 3 months, ideally during the fall / winter when windows are closed. 19
A Health Canada survey conducted in the 2009/2010 fall and winter heating season determined that 6.9% of Canadian homes have radon levels in excess of the current Canadian guideline of 200 Bq/m3, with New Brunswick and Manitoba having the highest shares of homes with elevated radon levels (24.8% and 23.7% of households in the survey, respectively). 20
Awareness
In 2011, 40% of Canadian households had heard of radon (Table 16). Households in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan were the most likely to have heard of it (54%, 53% and 53%, respectively). Those in Ontario (35%), Prince Edward Island (35%) and Newfoundland and Labrador (36%) were least likely to have said they had heard of radon.
Assessing Canadians’ knowledge of radon
Canadian households were asked a series of questions to assess their awareness of radon. Initially, all respondents were asked whether they had heard of radon. Those that indicated they had were asked to describe radon in their own words in order to determine the extent of their knowledge. During post-collection processing, a respondent’s knowledge of radon was then assessed as either “correct”, meaning they were able to unambiguously describe radon, or “incorrect”, meaning their description was factually incorrect. Those respondents who were unable to describe radon at all were assigned to a third category. Regardless of whether their answer was correct, respondents who said they had heard of radon were asked whether they considered radon to be a health hazard.
When respondents who had heard of radon were asked to describe it in their own words, 37% provided an answer assessed as correct, which is an increase of almost 25% from 2009. Households in Quebec (46%) and New Brunswick (42%) were most likely to have provided a correct description of radon. Another four out of ten (39%) households gave a description that did not apply to radon, with households in Nova Scotia most likely to give an incorrect description (47%). The remaining households (24%) had only heard of radon and could not describe it, with 42% of households in Newfoundland and Labrador falling into this category.
Of those households that had heard of radon, 73% correctly said that radon is a health hazard, which is an increase of 5 percentage points from 2009. Nine percent said it is not a health hazard and 17% did not know. Households in Quebec (79%) were the most likely to have correctly identified radon as a health hazard, while those in Saskatchewan (14%) and Nova Scotia (about 14%) were the most likely to have said it is not a health hazard.
Testing
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. 21 Because radon is not typically a risk in apartment buildings, except for apartments at or below grade, testing is normally only conducted in single-detached dwellings, doubles, duplexes and other non-apartment dwellings.
Forty-two percent of households not in apartments indicated that they had heard of radon (Table 17). Five percent of these households reported that they had tested their dwelling for its presence, which is more than half again the rate in 2009 (3%). Most of these households (82%) had conducted the testing within the last ten years.
Household hazardous waste
Household hazardous waste consists of items used in the home that cannot be handled by the regular waste management and recycling programs, usually because the items are environmentally hazardous or could pose a threat to waste collection and processing staff. Many municipalities accept household hazardous waste at special depots and some retailers offer take-back programs for certain items. In some cases households retain the items because they may not know what to do with them. There is a wide variety of household items that are considered hazardous - such as paints, solvents and pesticides - some, arguably, more well known than others. Other common household items, such as compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) and fluorescent tubes (both of which contain mercury) and batteries (which may contain acids and metals such as cadmium and lithium) are also often considered hazardous waste for disposal purposes. The same is true for electronics such as cell phones, computers and televisions, and medication.
Leftover or expired medication
Leftover and expired medications that are disposed of in a landfill can leach into the ground water and may end up in the drinking water supply. 22 Similarly, if flushed down a toilet or poured down the drain, they can end up in surface water because some drugs are difficult or impossible to remove during wastewater treatment. Many pharmacies will take back leftover and expired medications in order to ensure proper disposal. 23 As well, household hazardous waste depots often accept medications for disposal. 24
In 2011, 34% of Canadian households reported that they had leftover or expired medication to dispose of (Table 18). Almost two-thirds (63%) of these households returned the medication to the supplier, retailer, pharmacy or doctor for disposal, which is up from 57% in 2009. Five percent took or sent them to a depot or drop-off centre. Twenty-one percent put their leftover or expired medication in the garbage, while 5% poured them down the drain or sewer, flushed them down the toilet or poured them on the ground, down from 8% in 2009. Thirteen percent still had the medication when they were asked the question.
Provincially, households in Quebec remained the most likely to have returned leftover or expired medication to the supplier, retailer, pharmacy or doctor with over three-quarters (77%) of households having done so, while those in Newfoundland and Labrador (39%) were the least likely. Households in Alberta and British Columbia were the most likely to have thrown them in the garbage (28% and 27%, respectively).
Medical sharps
Medical sharps are items such as syringes, needles, insulin pens and lancets. These items need to be disposed of in a safe manner so that they do not pose health hazards to other people. Disposal programs exist in most parts of the country and are often run in conjunction with local pharmacies.
Almost one in ten (9%) households had medical sharps to dispose of (Table 18). Over half (55%) of these households returned them to a pharmacy or doctor, while 22% used a medical sharps disposal program. Sixteen percent reported putting them in the garbage, while 14% still had them at the time of the interview.
Paints and solvents
Paints and solvents require special disposal because of the chemical compounds they contain. These compounds can have a negative impact on the environment if not properly disposed of. 25
In 2011, 37% of Canadian households reported having had leftover paint or solvents to dispose of, which is a slight decrease from 39% in 2009 (Table 18). Most of these households (62%) took or sent their unwanted paints and solvents to a depot or drop-off centre, while 9% returned them to the supplier or retailer. An additional 3% disposed of their leftover paint or solvents by placing them in the garbage. Twenty-eight percent still had the paint or solvent at the time of the interview.
Households in Alberta (72%), Nova Scotia (72%) and Prince Edward Island (71%) were most likely to have returned leftover paint or solvents to a depot or drop-off centre, while those in Manitoba were most likely to have still had them when they were interviewed (54%).
Engine oil and anti-freeze
Many retailers operate take back programs for engine oil and anti-freeze. They are also accepted by most household hazardous waste depots.
Sixteen percent of Canadian households indicated they had unwanted engine oil or anti-freeze to dispose of, in 2011 (Table 18). Six out of ten of these households took or sent these wastes to a depot or drop-off centre, down slightly from 61% in 2009, while 19% returned them to the supplier or retailer, unchanged from 2009. Seventeen percent of these households reported they still had them when the interview was conducted.
General purpose batteries
General purpose batteries, such as AA batteries, watch batteries, and other non-automotive batteries, may contain a variety of metals like cadmium, mercury and lithium, in addition to acids. Special depots and take-back programs exist in many parts of the country to facilitate the proper disposal of these items. 26
In 2011, 51% of Canadian households reported that they had dead or unwanted batteries (other than automotive batteries) to dispose of (Table 18). Disposal via a depot or drop-off centre increased to 43% from 35% in 2009. Thirty-two percent of households disposed of them with their regular garbage, down from 42% in 2009, while 10% returned them to a supplier or retailer. Sixteen percent still had them to dispose of when the interview was conducted.
Provincially, households in Quebec were most likely to have taken their dead or unwanted batteries to a depot or drop-off centre (50%). Households in Newfoundland and Labrador (54%) and Saskatchewan (53%) were the most likely to have put them in the garbage, down from 2009 (74% and 69%, respectively).
Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs)
Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) use 75 percent less energy than standard incandescent light bulbs while delivering the same light output. 27 Unlike conventional incandescent lights that can be thrown in the garbage when they have burnt out, CFLs contain mercury, which can have significant impacts on both human health and the environment if not properly disposed of. Consequently, these lights are generally not accepted in the regular garbage stream and need to be disposed of through a hazardous waste program. “Take back” programs exist in some provinces to help consumers dispose of CFLs in a proper manner. 28 , 29
In 2011, 23% of all households in Canada reported having dead or unwanted compact fluorescent lights to dispose of (Table 18). Although they had one of the lower uptake rates for CFLs, households in Quebec were most likely to have reported having dead or unwanted CFLs (28%), followed by households in Prince Edward Island (26%). Households in Manitoba were the least likely (17%) to have reported having dead or unwanted CFLs to dispose of.
Nationally, the most frequently reported method of disposal was putting these lights in the garbage, which was reported by half of all households that had dead or unwanted CFLs (50%). Taking or sending them to a depot or drop-off centre was reported by 24% of households and 8% of households returned them to a supplier or retailer. When the interview was conducted, 12% of households still had dead or unwanted CFLs to dispose of.
Households in Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan that had dead or unwanted CFLs were most likely to have reported putting them in the garbage (79% and 74%, respectively), while those in Ontario were the least likely to have done so, with 37% of households reporting this method. Households in Ontario were the most likely to have taken or sent them to a depot or drop-off centre, with one-third of households that had dead or unwanted CFLs to dispose of indicating this method of disposal.
Fluorescent tubes
Like compact fluorescent lights, fluorescent tube lights contain mercury, which means they should not be disposed of in the regular garbage stream. They can often be disposed of via “take back” programs or through hazardous waste depots.
Slightly less than 1 out of 10 (9%) households reported having dead or unwanted fluorescent tubes to dispose of (Table 18). Just over one-third (34%) of these households disposed of them in the garbage. Three out of ten households that had dead or unwanted fluorescent tubes took them to a depot or drop-off centre and 7% returned them to a supplier or retailer. Nineteen percent of households still had them when the interview was conducted.
Electronic devices (e-waste)
With more than 4 out of 5 households (85%) reporting that they owned a computer in 2011 and 79% of households having one or more cell phones in 2011, 30 disposal of these types of items when they reach the end of their useful lives is a significant issue. 31 As some of their components contain metals and other materials that should not be disposed of in landfills, these items are often considered household hazardous waste.
In 2011, 23% of Canadian households reported that they had dead or unwanted computers to be disposed of (Table 19). Of these households, more than half (52%) took or sent them to a depot or drop-off centre and 7% returned them to a supplier or retailer. Three percent put them in the garbage, while 15% percent of households donated or gave them away. Almost one-quarter (23%) indicated they still had them when interviewed.
Fifteen percent of Canadian households had dead or unwanted printers or fax machines to dispose of in 2011 (Table 19). Much like households that had dead or unwanted computers, 51% of households that had printers and fax machines to dispose of did so by taking or sending them to a depot or drop-off centre and 7% returned them to a supplier or retailer. Four percent put them in the garbage, while 14% of households donated or gave them away. At the time of interview, 22% of households still had them.
In 2011, slightly less than one-quarter of households (24%) reported having dead or unwanted televisions and computer displays to be disposed of (Table 19). Half of these households took or sent them to a depot or drop-off centre and 5% returned them to a supplier or retailer. Five percent put them in the garbage, while 20% donated or gave them away. Nineteen percent still had them when the interview was conducted.
Thirteen percent of Canadian households had dead or unwanted audio-video equipment to dispose of, in 2011 (Table 19). Of these households, 51% took or sent them to a depot or drop-off centre and about 4% returned them to a supplier or retailer. Seven percent put them in the garbage, while 16% donated or gave them away. Slightly more than two out of ten (21%) of households still had them when the interview was conducted.
In 2011, 18% of Canadian households had dead or unwanted cell phones (Table 19). Of these households, 25% took or sent them to a depot or drop-off centre and 19% returned them to a supplier or retailer. Eight percent donated or gave them away, while about 5% put them in the garbage. Forty-four percent of households that had dead or unwanted cell phones still had them when contacted for the interview.
Few households in Canada (4%) reported having dead or unwanted electronic gaming equipment to dispose of (Table 19). Of those that did, the most common form of disposal was taking or sending them to a depot (40%) or drop-off centre, followed by donating or giving them away (about 14%). Slightly more than one-quarter (27%) still had them when the interview was conducted.
Purchasing decisions
The purchasing decisions consumers make can have direct and indirect impacts on the environment. Direct impacts are those that are caused by having or using an item, such as the greenhouse gas emissions from driving a car. Indirect impacts can include, for example, the greenhouse gas emissions released by the vehicles that transported a product to market. In some cases, there are practices that can be adopted to reduce the magnitude of these impacts, such as purchasing locally-produced products that minimize the distance of the trip from the source to market, or purchasing electricity from “green” energy providers.
Locally-produced foods
Part of the environmental impact of food consumption is associated with the energy consumed as a result of bringing food to market. Generally speaking, foods that are produced close to where they are purchased by the consumer will have less of an environmental impact due to transportation than those that must be transported greater distances. In 2011, 90% of Canadian households reported that they had purchased locally grown or produced foods when they were available or in season (Table 20), with households in Nova Scotia most likely to have done so (97%).
Green cleaning products
Canadians are exposed to chemicals in a variety of ways, including in cleaning products used in the home. Choosing environmentally-friendly or “green” cleaning products is one way the number of chemicals in the home can be reduced. 32
Eighty-five percent of Canadian households reported they had purchased environmentally-friendly or “green” cleaning products in 2011, up slightly from 80% in 2009 (Table 20). Eleven percent reported they always did this, while 23% and 36%, respectively, reported they often or sometimes did this. Fifteen percent reported they rarely purchased them and 11% reported they never purchased green cleaning products.
Reusable bags
Reusable and recycled bags and containers continue to be a popular choice for shoppers to carry their groceries, with the rate of use in 2011 being similar to 2009 (92%) (Table 20).
Households in Quebec and Ontario (62% and 50%, respectively) continued to lead the provinces in the proportion of households reporting that they always used reusable or recycled bags or containers to carry their groceries. Fourteen percent of households in Newfoundland and Labrador, on the other hand, reported that they never used these types of bags and containers.
- Date modified: