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 -
- 3
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 Mary Milander
You talk about science. Well, the science shows that nuclear power makes waste that is radioactive for thousands of years, and SMRs that supposedly recycle that waste cannot use it all up. There's also a safety issue. The waste is only one of the many problems with nuclear energy. We can NOT call nuclear green at all. I have neither the time nor the inclination to repeat the quotes and proofs for my argument that have already been quoted by others in this forum. Support for nuclear power is not consistent with Green Party policy and should NOT be part of the Green Party of Canada's platform.
I am glad the policy regarding nuclear power is advancing. As citizens we must consider the complexity of issues ,especially energy issues. First of all acknowledge our real energy need per person, and design a society with less need. Second design an economy that isn't a blind growth economy ( the reason our energy needs per person have been only rising) . Third there is no green energy, except passive solar. So while I see that nuclear is absolutely necessary, I do not endorse building stations to support GDP growth. Nuclear is a technology that demands stringent safety measures and constant oversight. This is one reason I would hate the DGR to move to the North. Lastly the Green Party must double down on efforts to push for the abolition of nuclear weapons. The treaty for non proliferation has been sadly undermined within NATO states.
I agree, Sibylle, although I want to point out that recycling is energy-intensive. When you recycle, that new product gets added to GDP! My sense is that we need nuclear power to move to a circular economy. That reduces the destructive throughput of the economy, but may even increase measured GDP
Mary, your response is full of empty rhetoric, slogans and massive oversimplifications that sidestep the science you claim to value. Yes, nuclear waste is long-lived, but it’s very safely managed in ways that fossil fuel pollution never is. Advancements in waste recycling are reducing, not increasing, the waste issue. Abjectly dismissing nuclear as “not green” ignores _decades_ of clear, unequivocal data/evidence showing its low emissions - on par with renewables - and crucial role in clean energy grids worldwide. Simply refusing to engage in real debate doesn’t strengthen your argument—it only weakens it.
This kind of opposition to nuclear is rooted in cherry-picked, incomplete data at best, outright misinformation at worst. Irrational and illogical, dogmatic to the point of quasi-religious fundamentalism. This kind of hyper-ideological rigidity and cognitive dissonance holds the party back from getting more support and votes. We need to be pragmatic and evidence-based, embracing the current science/data which clearly proves nuclear's safety, viability and long-term cost effectiveness
Mary, power generation takes material that is already radioactive for thousands of years out of the ground, uses some of the radioactive atoms to generate usable energy, produces some newly radioactive material and puts that back into the ground.
Blake, your response is full of empty rhetoric, slogans and massive oversimplifications that sidestep the science you claim to value.
Projection much, Mary? You're the one dismissing nuclear with slogans and refusing to engage with data. The science is clear: nuclear is one of the safest, lowest-carbon sources we have. Ignoring that fact only weakens your position. As does this performative posturing -- not backing up your position & rebutting/refuting mine with actual facts and evidence.
Loading comments ...