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 Gordon McDowell
I'd like to invite any opponents of nuclear power who listens to podcasts to check out one particular episode of DECOUPLE.
"Energy Modeling: the Good, the Bad, and the Misleading"
https://www.decouplemedia.org/podcast/episode/1ef07cc3/energy-modeling-the-good-the-bad-and-the-misleading
I know both the participants in this conversation, Dr. Chris Keefer and Mark Nelson. Both have participated in pro-vs-anti nuclear debates. (On the pro side.)
The topic they cover here is how energy modelling is used to convince policymakers that renewables can be easily integrated, and balanced out across the grid with combinations of storage and balancing and intermittent sources compensate for one another.
Here's a very imperfect transcript, which I crib from:https://otter.ai/u/kXYizi1eXF14D8gCZPIWJqBgQKw
START EXCERPT
One anecdote I think I would end with is that when Diablo Canyon was hanging between life and death before this right through where the governor publicly supported it and you know, crushed opposition and got Diablo Canyon widely supported by Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate of California and, you know, Diablo Canyon looks set to be saved.
Before that happened. I reached out with folks to one the possibly the leading energy modeling firm in the US and reached out to their founder, their head honcho, and directly said, we can get the money, the money you need, what is it $75,000? $100,000? We can get that money. And we want a model comparing California without Diablo to California with Diablo on an emissions and cost.
They said absolutely just any other nuclear plant other than Diablo.
I said well hold up. We don't we don't need models for other nuclear plants, other nuclear plants aren't set to close for non economic reasons. So we need one on Diablo.
The answer was, Well, no.
I said, Well, why?
They said, Well, we get we do a lot of work with the powers that be in California and we can't risk upsetting them.
END EXCERPT
I do listen to podcasts myself, and make a point of trying to get a broad set of points of view. Perhaps one of the best vaguely anti-nuclear ones is Dr. Volts (David Roberts) who goes into intricate detail on new solar, geothermal and battery tech.
From my own experience trying to suss-out (from 2009 until 2012) whether nuclear power was truly a useful energy option, or deserving the incurious dismissal I kept seeing from anti-nuclear folk (including GPC leadership) was to listen to pro-nuclear advocates (and engineers working at nuclear start-ups) debate among their preferred technologies and solutions.
You'll hear criticisms of nuclear likely never spoken by garden variety nuclear opponents... because the opinionated pro-nuclear people are totally in-the-weeds on nuclear, energy markets and supply chains. Take what they say about renewables with a grain of salt if you like, but it is often an informative exchange.
I recommend DECOUPLE Podcast for that.
Thanks for sharing your favourite podcast, @gordon_mcdowell
Here's a podcast that interviews Canadians living in radioactive neighbourhoods.
It's called RADIOACTIVE and is also available on Spotify and Google Podcasts
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/sarah-gabrielle-baron
https://open.spotify.com/show/3Ll1GniYQKpwWaDpC5xfMI
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy80ZDVmOGQzNC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw
I wonder, if this motion passes, then when we match it to Article 7.3.13 of our constitution (that spokespersons are not allowed to go against the member-made Policy Book), does that mean that as Nuclear Critic on Elizabeth May Green Party of Canada Leader's Shadow Cabinet that I won't be able to promote my own podcast anymore? Gee, thanks for proposing a gag for anti-nuclear women like me. Cuz I "don't understand the science" (to paraphrase this motion).
Radioactive with Caldicott
03:00 Hershey's Chocolates. Caldicott's standard for knowing something is true is "they haven't sued me". How about sampling the chocolates? Humans can detect a single subatomic particle hitting a sensor. Instead of actually investigating she's been speculating on this since 1980s.
04:20 Fukushima Thyroid. There was no increase in incidents, there was an increase in detection. Because they were testing when they otherwise had not been.
https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2021/unisous419.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9703926/
20:36 "You only need 5 pounds of Plutonium to make a bomb." She says this all the time, always implying that the Pu in used fuel can be used to make a bomb.
That is reactor-grade Pu not weapons-grade Pu. It is still toxic and a material no one wants to come into contact with... but it is contaminated with Pu-241 (which spontaneously fissions) making it unsuitable for a weapon.
Her constant tying nuclear energy to nuclear weapons largely hinges on this omission.
She also mentioned leukaemia around nuclear power plants. I believe you've mentioned this too. Here's my rebuttal to Caldicott's reports that she cites. (As in... newer reports issued since the ones she keeps citing.)
https://youtu.be/Qaptvhky8IQ?si=2EhQXJXFJmnAZXDq&t=3384
Have started listening to your Caldicott episode. I'll comment on it when finished.
Here's the audio of Dr. Helen Caldicott speaking about George Monbiot. If you've never heard it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxwmjeOH0qQ
...it will take you less than 90 seconds to hear it. The whole video is less than 90 seconds. (Is an excerpt from a longer video.)
I guess you don't know Gordon well. Gordon has made hours of footage and commentary discussing Caldicott's misinformation and correcting it. Would I know about the world-altering influence of Nevil Shute's 1957 novel "On the Beach" if not for Helen Caldicott talking about it in one of Gordon's videos? I would not.
Helen Caldecott has been a full-time anti-nuclear lobbyist. She is the Mother Theresa of the anti-nuclear movement, but why believe her? Her books are largely self-referencing, unverified, and verging on scientific fraud. Her descriptions of nuclear technologies display an amazing ignorance.
You might be interested in what a practicing Canadian doctor has to say about some of her "facts".
https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/ld07fi/dr_helen_caldicott_vs_nuclear_canada/?rdt=37871
Or you might like this account from leading environmentalist, George Monbiot
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/how-the-anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-us-all-with-dodgy-claims-20110405-1d2uv.html
Sarah, wow you hosted Dr. Helen Caldicott! She has quite a history of untrue statements.
Do you have a favourite episode you can recommend, or should I just listen to the latest one with Caldicott?
I can listen to more than one, but I need to start somewhere. So please direct me to what you'd consider your favourite.
As far as 7.3.13 ("Position: Any statement from the Party that articulates what the Party and Party Members would work toward if elected. A Position may not contradict Policy, Values, or any other membership decision.") ...
That's why I have my own policy proposal explicitly designed to stop scaring away any pro-nuclear or nuclear-ambivalent candidates and voters who might otherwise find a home in GPC.
(It isn't like there are a lot of GPC getting elected federally. Do you think this might have anything to do with GPC's anti-nuclear stance?)
I still support Colin's proposal. But I think it is complex. If we just strip-out bad existing policy then I think that opens up the debate rather than stifling it in either direction. I'd sure appreciate your support Sarah!
Do you agree with Dr. Helen Caldicott that 1 million people were killed by Chernobyl radiation?
When Dr. Gordon Edwards was debating Dr. Chris Keefer I was really surprised he'd mentioned the "1 million" figure and the report that contained it...
https://www.nyas.org/annals/chernobyl/
Dr. Gordon Edwards and Dr. Helen Caldicott ALWAYS describe it as "published by The New York Academy of Sciences".
Which is literally true, but glosses over NYAS sort of dis-owning it. (Quoting NYAS website...)
Neither Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences nor the New York Academy of Sciences commissioned this work; nor by publishing the work does the Academy validate the claims made in the original Slavic language publications cited in the translated papers. Importantly, the translated volume has not been formally peer‐reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences or by anyone else.
Under the editorial practices of Ann NY Acad Sci at the time, some projects, such as the Chernobyl translation, were developed and accepted solely to fulfill the Academy’s broad mandate of providing an open forum for discussion of scientific questions, rather than to present original scientific studies or Academy positions. The content of these projects, conceived as one-off book projects, were not vetted by standard peer review.
...NOT PEER REVIEWED.
When George Monbiot challenged Dr. Helen Caldicott on this, she called Monbiot a "stupid little man" and said her professional diagnosis was that "he was either suffering from a cerebral tumour or he's had a psychotic breakdown".
And Dr. Caldicott suggested a Trumpian "people are saying" that Monbiot was on-the-take from the nuclear industry.
No need to comment on any of that if you don't want to, but I do need to know if you think NYAS "published" collection is accurate, and you think a million died.
Loading comments ...