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
"I'd start with Mark Z. Jacobson out of Stanford, but there are many other."
Sarah, when you cite MZJ as your first example of proof that nuclear is not needed, you're citing a professor who's used SLAPP to (try) to silence his critics. The one episode of one podcast I've been repeatedly encouraging GPC members to listen to is "DECOUPLE - Energy Modelling: the Good, the Bad, and the Misleading"
Video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__qpTuLaGg (audio versions can also be found, is very convenient content to consume)
...they discuss MZJ's SLAPP against Christopher Clack, because Clack had the audacity to point out MZJ was exaggerating hydro's dispatchability.
This was a 2015 paper published by MZJ. Clack's critique was published in 2017, and MZJ responded almost immediately with the SLAPP.
It wasn't until THIS YEAR, 2024, that the legal battle had completely ended, with MZJ (well, Stanford) being forced to pay Clack's legal fees.
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/
Sarah, can you confirm you DID or did NOT listen to that single episode of DECOUPLE I asked you to?
Because I listened to your podcast. You platform people spreading disinformation... for example, in the very first episode I listened to, Dr. Helen Caldicott says a large number of people in Fukushima developed thyroid cancer.
I feature that statement in a video I made about Dr. Helen Caldicott. I feature YOUR PODCAST. Because YOU personally directed me to listen to it. And I listened to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di8AnUsDmew
Before you cite MZJ again, could you please do us the courtesy of listening to either the DECOUPLE episode on energy modelling, or read the RETRACTION WATCH coverage concerning MZJ?
Because you keep citing people, and platforming people, who have made inaccurate statements about nuclear power.
MZJ, for example, claimed in a TED Talk debate (with Stewart Brand) over nuclear power, that nuclear power has up to 70g CO2 /kWh.
Today we know, according to United Nations ECE Lifecycle report that nuclear is around 5.5g, not 70g.
Sarah, have you read the UN ECE Report?
Loading comments ...