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, yes, in my own proposal I have listed off all the overtly anti-nuclear policies which would need to be rescinded or modified. Sorry that (for example) banning uranium mining worldwide might be an important policy goal for you. Currently it is Canadian mined uranium which (used domestically and exported) offsets a full third of all of Canada's emissions, across all sectors.
I joined GPC because I wish to fight Global Warming, and since joining I've come to see how some GPC policies impede the fight.
I can post comments here, but really very few GPC members are reading them. The only real megaphone is used by Elizabeth May on this subject, and she has yet to acknowledge to our members that nuclear is even low carbon. (United Nations ECE Lifecycle report shows nuclear being THE SINGLE LOWEST-CARBON source of energy.)
My GPC involvement stems from GPC positioning itself as the party which would fight against Global Warming. That is why I joined. It is why GPC received my VERY overt support and volunteering for years. If you want GPC's primary appeal to always be to members who will forever have a non-changing sense of what GPC should be, and should always be... well has GPC ever done better than the election after which "An Inconvenient Truth" was released in 2006?
https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html
6.8% was the high-water mark for GPC receiving Canadian votes, back in 2008.
While Global Warming isn't GPC's only issue, it still strikes me as GPC's signature issue. GPC can't keep Climate Hawks in the party, if GPC opposes the SINGLE LOWEST-CARBON TECH available today.
GPC can continue to fight against any particular waste storage site. Any particular reactor being built on a particular site. Lay out guidelines for what is acceptable or not.
But it is right there in the policy you quote: "The Canadian Greens would support a nuclear-free policy for Canada".
The blanket-ban makes all the details you list moot.
"We would also have to rescind our support from UNDRIP"
NO. That is a reason to oppose specific projects. Not a reason to entirely ban a technology. You can give that as a reason while opposing a project, and oppose a project. GPC can still oppose things.
And opposition will carry more weight when the rational everyone understands does not include a blanket-ban which exists because you believe it is "the heart of the Party".
Loading comments ...