Collaborative Proposal Creation
Create, improve and sponsor proposals in a respectful, fully bilingual environment. Grow proposals in the "Hothouse", for promotion to the "Workshop", to become official GPC policy.
Proposal text
Be it resolved that the Green Party of Canada long conflicted between the horror of nuclear weapons and the need to support reliable and clean nuclear power,
• will adopt a view of nuclear power that is consistent with the best scientific knowledge and practices, and
• will advocate for the continued development of nuclear power technologies, extraction technologies, nuclear waste disposal, and alternative nuclear fuels.
Type of Proposal
Public policy that the party would represent
Objective / Benefit
The GPC has a longstanding public position of preferring renewable power generation instead of nuclear power generation. Yet not one policy currently addresses the beneficial effects of nuclear power. All policy references to nuclear are to the prevention and control of nuclear weapons.
The objective of this policy is to establish a new policy that addresses the benefits of the use of nuclear power generation in a changing environment that urgently needs reliable power generation.
- Whereas the policies of the Green Party of Canada are to be based on scientific principles, and
- Whereas we now know how to build nuclear power plants that are far safer than our current operational designs, and
- Whereas nuclear power generation can be demonstrated,
- to be the least polluting of all electricity generation technologies, in terms of CO2 production per MW of capacity,
- to have the smallest footprint in terms of station size, acres per MW of installed capacity,
- to have the lowest volume of waste production in terms of tons per MW,
- to require the least input of scarce resources in terms of tons per MW,
- to have the best safety record of all generation facilities in terms of loss of human life per MW of installed capacity, and
- Whereas we do know what to do with spent nuclear fuel to ensure safety.
This policy will complement and expand the policies of the Green Party of Canada, making them more appropriate in an intellectually honest way.
If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
This is new policy. All existing policy addresses various aspects of the undesirability of nuclear weapons. It does not in any way reduce the relevance of those policies.
List any supporting evidence for your proposal
1. Jack Devanney, The Two Lies that killed nuclear:
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/the-two-lies-that-killed-nuclear
2. Jack Devanney, Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop:
3. Cleo Abram, The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc
4. Burning Nuclear waste:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u44skO-nMo
5. IEA on Nuclear Power:
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power
6. Our World in Data, Death Toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima:
https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
7. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, LNT:
https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/linear-non-threshold-model/index.cfm
8. Original text of this proposal: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j5bvh4dagagllrhus59h9/GPC-Nuclear.docx?rlkey=8ozj24vcajsvofrtgtpy9pt85&st=uvmsga8g&dl=0
Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
There are many in the party and outside, who consider Nuclear Power to be so dangerous as to be categorically denied as a solution to our future power needs. This policy reverses that perception of Nuclear Power. It is likely to alienate such people in their support of the party.
There is also likely to be an adverse reaction from the Global Greens, which would need to be carefully managed, though it is to be hoped that this motion will start a greens-wide reassessment of their positions on nuclear power.
Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
Yes
Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
English
This proposal is being evaluated
Posted on the Continuous Motion Development Vote tab for member review prior to the all-member vote.
Amendments (3)
-
Created at
24/05/2024 -
- 0
-
Created at
05/07/2024 -
- 0
-
Created at
10/07/2024 -
- 2
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Related images
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Dale Dewar
Nuclear is really a dirty dangerous distraction from tackling the problem of sustainable energy sources. I can't believe this discussion is occurring.
Here we have a long-time Green, past candidate, family physician, associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, an active member of the International Committee of the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, a two-term member of the Canadian Friends Service Committee, and former Executive Director of Physicians for Global Survival. If you want to know where her facts are, read her book.
and https://btlbooks.com/authors/view/dale-dewar
As a Green, I respect this woman voicing her opinion, and take great exception to her then being belittled and degraded by her vociferously pro-nuke counterparts. Shame.
I too am a past candidate - (5 times) with a PhD. Mine is in economics rather than medicine, so I rely on physicians like Dr. Chris Keefer and other members of Doctors for Nuclear Energy (https://www.doctorsfornuclearenergy.org/) for assurance about the safety of nuclear power. (Chris is the guy Dale called "an embarrassment" to the medical profession.")
Incidentally, I taught environmental economics at the university level before I retired. That might or might not count as a professional qualification in this discussion. I also began campaigning on climate change well before retiring and left the NDP to come to the Greens because I thought the party was more committed to fighting climate change.
Just as you oppose nuclear power based on your knowledge, Sarah, based on my knowledge of environmental systems and economics, , I favour the rapid expansion of nuclear power globally as a key way to decarbonize and prevent a massive environmental and human disaster.
David
Your ideals are in the right place, but your vehicle (nuclear) is the wrong one...
We have many safer, more reliable and more peaceful energy solutions already being developed (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, etc) and no longer need fossil fuels or nuclear power to survive. Why take those risks any longer when they are unnecessary?
Dale Dewar your diatribe is decisively devoid of details. Do describe the dirty danger.
Dale, Zero facts, as usual.
Dirty? Give a definition so that we can bring the data to bear. What is your evidence?
Dangerous? Precisely how many people have been harmed by the Canadian Nuclear program? How does that number compare to chopstick injuries in Canada? Bicycles? Diesel caused emphysema?
I see why you don't want the discussion to go on.
Nuclear is dangerous everywhere and doesn't discriminate by geography...
It can happen in Canada, it HAS already happened in Canada and it will happen again in Canada...
https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/story/610/can-a-nuclear-accident-happen-in-canada-question-and-answer/
Canadians have also been harmed by nuclear power as well, which most people seem to forget:
https://thewalrus.ca/nuclear-accidents/
I just hope that not too many people are negatively affected when it does happen again and that we can learn from it and move towards phasing out nuclear before too many tragic accidents occur...
Loading comments ...