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.
On Nuclear Power
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
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Boyd Reimer
It’s not only Mark Z Jacobson who is against nuclear power: Here’s a link to many other links on nuclear power.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cI43A2gbwT5D-hMRlxTDI7VpLggeNGiCfWh1S9YkwtM/edit
I agree, of course. Helen Caldicott probably opposed nuclear power before MZJ was even born. MZJ's role, rather, is to be the world's main source of papers proposing that solutions with 0% nuclear power are practical, affordable, and the best option. As I've discussed elsewhere, his 2015 paper "assumed" 1300 GW of hydro capacity would be available, even though the nameplate hydro capacity in 2015 was under 92 GW according to the same paper and its supplementary material[1], and the way he responded to other scientists' response paper was... unusual.[2]
[1] https://kencaldeira.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/mzj-hydro-explainer/
[2] https://climatecasechart.com/case/jacobson-v-national-academy-sciences/
Amazing compilation of sources on nuclear energy, Boyd...thank you for providing this for all of us... :-)
I love the David Suzuki reaction to Seamus O'Regan's endorsement of nuclear power: "I want to puke"...! haha It's so true: nuclear is too time consuming, too costly, too complex, too risky, too dangerous...all of the above...we need action now in proven alternative energies like solar, wind and geothermal, while also continuing consistent hydro...that is the way forward...
Neat!
I'm not sure what benefit list comparisons are to this conversation. But here is a list of people that are pro nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-nuclear_movement
I'm not sure if us posting lists is at all helpful. I think that talking about specific issues would be a lot more helpfull. Like how you brought up plutonium. You failed to propose any policy in Canada that would reduce a foreign countries ability to sell it. That, I think would be more helpfull to the discussion.
Loading comments ...