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
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 ...