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 Boyd Reimer
Paul McKay, author of “Atomic Accomplice: How Canada deals in Deadly Deceit” blames C anada for participating in the Second World War development of the atomic bomb for the Americans. I am neither as moralistic nor as uncanadian. Canada joined Britain's defense against Nazi Germany, which was planning to invade Britain. Canada was damned happy that the Americans eventually joined the war effort. Germany was developing its own atomic weapons. Britain shipped its nuclear research to the USA because of the fear the Germans would successfully invade and capture their experts.
Only in retrospect can some who is obsessively anti-nuke think that it was shameful for Canada to participate in developing the bomb or in the production of plutonium for the bomb.
The idea of the argument is to link nuclear power generation to military crimes and American imperialism. It is a dishonest and disrespectful rhetorical device.
Canada joined Britain's offence against Nazi Germany. I would like to see the evidence of the plan to invade Britain. Canada sold CANDU or equivalent to India in the 1960s, extracting a promise not to use it to produce a bomb. How long did that deter them? If the point is that non-proliferation is not worth the effort, I have to disagree.
I appreciate that you are prepared to admit that the idea used CANDU used fuel was used to build an Indian bomb is nothing but a rumor. It would have been a dumb approach since the original fuel was unenriched uranium, and that was the feedstock for the production of a bomb. Did India hide its uranium demand behind the legitimate civilian reactor? Maybe, but that is another issue.
I can paraphrase the Times of India article that was published at the time of the inauguration of CANDU in India. The officials were quoted as stating that the CANDU contract prohibited its use for the production of nuclear weapons, ... "however" that they now had the capacity to produce a bomb whenever it should become needful. I can not state with any confidence that the spent fuel from the CANDU reactor was finally used for that purpose, but it was suitable, and neither can anyone state with any confidence that it was not used. The reason that plutonium has been primarily used by late joiners of the nuclear weapons club, is because it is far easier and far cheaper to refine from the spent fuel than is enrichment of Uranium.
Stephen, it is true that Canada fought the Nazisand worked on British and American war technologies. Perhaps you think that was a mistake. CANDU fuels were not used to build a bomb for India. The Indians had the scientists and engineers already. They wanted both nuclear power and a bomb. They could produce a bomb on their own, and they did. Yes, they hid some of the work as peaceful reactor work with CANDU, but that is using a CANDU to HIDE a bomb, not using a CANDU to build a bomb. We should try to keep these false stories out of the discussion if we can.,
The fear of plutonium that Boyd and others exhibit is the result of a long campaign of misinformation. Now people like Boyde seem to wake up fearing imaginary terrorists who steal the metal from impregnable caskets and reactors, somehow refine it, and then sneak the stuff under their beds with the other monsters of their imaginations.
Plutonium is a metal very like uranium. If you hold it your hand (as hundred or thousands have) it's heavy, like lead. It is a toxic metal, like lead or arsenic, but not much more so. You have to eat it in order to harm yourself with it.
It is radioactive but much less so than radium, for example, which is scattered again all over the earth's crust. It's not a very frightening material.
Phobias like the plutonium phobia can probably be treated with large and regular doses of facts, but the victims of this disease have to be willing to undergo treatment. As with most mental problems, they have to first admit they have a problem.
Please don't belittle others, Mr Robinson...have some class and tact...
And, while it might be fine to actually hold some of these radioactive materials in your hand, that is not the advice or imagery we want to be suggesting to others for good reason...the stuff is very dangerous, it needs to be respected and not joked about, okay? Have some common sense...
I really want to be polite. But this seems like a lot of weird babbling. When I read something like:
"The traditional argument against nuclear waste is that peace loving people will accidentally come into contact with the deadly cancer-causing plutonium."
My immediate thoughts are. Plutonium is perfectly safe to handle. You can hold it in your hands. But also, how are you getting your hands on plutonium? You're more likely to end up with lead poisioning from bullets before you were to ever get your hands on plutonium. This is a weird and strange argument.
But in some ways you're not wrong. There are countries out there that can currently produce plutonium at a very great cost. Like Russia. Currently if Russia wanted to they could sell it to a third party. This has nothing to do with a nuclear reactor. They can produce it without a nuclear reactor, process it, and sell it. So let's flip the switch on this argument.
Rusissa can currently do so. Why aren't they?
What policy would you like to see in Canada that would prevent Russia from selling plutonium?
Loading comments ...