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.
Preamble
Nuclear power is one of the lowest-carbon sources of electricity, as recognized by IPCC and United Nations ECE. A majority of Canadians support using nuclear energy to generate electricity.
Proposal text
Green Party of Canada WILL CEASE BLANKET-OPPOSITION TO NUCLEAR POWER AS A SOURCE OF LOW-CARBON ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION.
Type of Proposal
Public policy that the party would represent.
Objective / Benefit
This resolution is intended to withdraw existing GPC policies which oppose Canada's use of nuclear technologies for non-military purposes. GPC policies which impede nuclear by calling for "renewable" energy shall be updated to replace "renewable" with "clean".
If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
1996 Foreign Aid - repeal
G06-p11 Enhanced Nuclear Policy - repeal
1998 - Peace and Security - repeal
G08-p012 Nuclear Power - repeal
G10-p31 Carbon Free National Feed-in Tariff - Amend: remove "non-nuclear,"
G08-136 Energy Transition Plan - Amend: change "renewable energy" to "clean energy"
G08-p137 Support of Distributed Electrical Power Grid Research - Amend: change "renewable energy" to "clean energy"
List any supporting evidence for your proposal
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe issued a report comparing not just lifecycle carbon emissions for various electricity sources, but overall impact on the environment and human health. Nuclear power was the single lowest CO2eq /kWh electricity source studied. The single lowest impact on ecosystems. And among the very lowest impact on human health. (CO2: Page 8. Ecosystems: Page 57. Human health: Page 58.) https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options
Our World In Data summarizes a modern assessment of various electricity system's safety and cleanliness. While not as in-depth or recent as UN ECE's study, Our World In Data clearly positioned nuclear in 2020 as one of humanity's safest and cleanest energy sources. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Despite his continued opposition to nuclear power, Dr. Gordon Edwards acknowledges "Low-carbon emitting technologies include solar, wind, hydro and nuclear" in a 2021 briefing paper. https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/441/ENVI/WebDoc/WD11891319/11891319/RamanaMV-1-e.pdf
In GPC's "Roundtable on Canada's Nuclear Policy" Dr. Gordon Edward observes that splitting atoms for energy does not release carbon. (Excerpt with my commentary:) https://youtu.be/HKIcnbMMdO0?t=24 (Original video:) https://www.facebook.com/GreenPartyofCanada/videos/934857067289154/
The nuclear supply chain for CANDU refurbishments is 98% Canadian. https://www.opg.com/documents/2021-ontario-nuclear-collaboration-report/
This can be contrasted with other low (but not as low as nuclear) carbon energy sources where components are not domestically produced, such as wind turbines: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/79fdad93-9025-49ad-ba16-c26d718cc070
Nuclear's domestic, Canadian, supply chain still achieves a cost /kWh only beaten by hydropower. https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20211022.pdf
On April 23, 2023, Dr. Chris Keefer debated Dr. Gordon Edwards on the subject of nuclear power in Canada. This was the "Roundtable on Canada's Nuclear Policy" that GPC members might have experienced, if a single pro-nuclear voice had been allowed to participate. https://youtu.be/LvMC8TK025w
Angus Reid Institute finds increasing support from Canadians for nuclear power. In June 2021, 51% of Canadians said they would like to see further development of nuclear power generation. Now 57% say the same. https://angusreid.org/canada-energy-nuclear-power-oil-and-gas-wind-solar/
This 57% of Canadians supporting nuclear matches a similar trend in the United States, where also now 57% support nuclear power. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/
Germany serves as a cautionary tale that renewables have not replaced their nuclear fleet. This video details use on online grid monitoring tools to evaluate Elizabeth May's statement (made during COP28) that shutting down nuclear power has "freed up" the grid to accept renewable energy, while not also noting that German grid remains high-carbon, and Germany immediately transitioned (upon the closure of their last nuclear power plants) from being net-exporter of electricity to net-importer of electricity. https://youtu.be/8rcMwmGuGSo
Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
N/A
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
05/07/2024 -
- 6
-
Created at
27/02/2024 -
- 0
-
Created at
05/07/2024 -
- 0
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 Dale Dewar
When did nuclear become "green"? When the nuclear industry put its hefty lobbying effort after environmentalists. Each nuclear power plant emits a soup of radioactive carbon-14, krypton and tritium to say nothing of the smaller amounts of cesium-137, strontium-90 and iodine-131. Do we get radiation from the background - we all know that we do but adding to it is a distinct health hazard. Even the background radiation has health effects shown by Swiss studies. Over 60 studies show an increase in leukaemia in children that rises the closer one comes to the nuclear power plant. With releases of nuclear waste, we are overburdening our human genome.
"hefty lobbying effort"
Not from what I've ever seen.
I've been a member of GPC long before I took an interest in nuclear power. Here's my volunteer video capture of a GPC 2009 event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxRPPSMqOPA ...while my memory is pretty hazy before 2008, I see an email record of my GPC participation dating back to 2005.
I became more active after seeing An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, naturally assuming GPC was the party which would most effectively combat Global Warming.
Now the energies I used to volunteer to GPC are spent trying to communicate the technology behind nuclear power to the public. Here is just one bit of my self-funded efforts this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTHo0Nu4iY ...I paid for everything you see in that video.
(That's the sort of thing I used to do with GPC... volunteer, but of course not paying for stuff out of my own pocket.)
"emits a soup of radioactive carbon-14..."
No. A nuclear reactor DOES NOT emit a soup of radioactive fission products. A fission reaction does. The reactor does not.
All sorts of incredibly toxic processes are involved in "green" and non-green tech. The supply chains and products contain extremely harmful materials. You and I are shielded from these hazardous materials because they're not emitted. Solar panels and batteries "contain" the toxins. Even fiberglass wind turbine blades contain the carcinogen Bisphenol A.
Yet, these are all (statistically) safe technologies. Because just like nuclear power, the hazardous materials are contained. The unsafe technologies poop the toxins directly into our air and water. Nuclear is not one of those.
Here's what I shared with everyone who came to my community table:
UN ECE Nuclear is clean: https://www.patreon.com/file?h=88247798&i=15517598
UN ECE Nuclear is safe: https://www.patreon.com/file?h=88247798&i=15517601
UN ECE Nuclear low-CO2: https://www.patreon.com/file?h=88247798&i=15517603
...and I gave out gummy bears with these info sheets...
https://www.patreon.com/file?h=88247798&i=15517842
That's the United Nations ECE clarifying nuclear power is the CLEANEST source of energy, it is the LOWEST-CO2 source of energy, and it is not the safest but among the very-safest forms of energy production.
If you'd like to see why so many prominent organizations are not worried about supposed releases from nuclear power plants, here's my own look at Dr. Helen Caldicott's claim that living next to a nuclear power plant gives children leukemia... it is a deep link to a moment in my video where there is a comparison between 3 studies:
https://youtu.be/Qaptvhky8IQ?si=baGdb1pno4GCI0Gq&t=3374
...the pertinent moment is 5 minutes long.
DALE: you ask "When did nuclear become "green"?"
The question you are really asking is proabably, "When did most of the world accept the fact that nuclear power is minimally environmentally damaging and near zero carbon, SO THAT IT BECAME ELIGIBLE FOR THE SAME SUPPORT AS WIND AND SOLAR?"
The answer is February 2, 2022, when the European Commission made the decision.
In March’s Spring Budget, the British Chancellor announced that nuclear power will be classified as “environmentally sustainable” in UK’s green taxonomy, “giving it access to the same investment incentives as renewable energy.”
You don't define nuclear as green, Dale. I do, Canada does, and the USA does, the EU does, Britain does.
Loading comments ...