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 Sarah Gabrielle Baron
I support our leader, Elizabeth May, who has been true to our Key Value of Ecological Wisdom her entire life, and has always been deeply critical of the nuclear industry. Greens who support this motion must be honest that this motion seeks to muzzle the only political party in Canada that freely criticizes the nuclear industry. See this article for Elizabeth's latest statement. Do you really want to silence her voice? https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/11/news/advertisement-nuclear-industry-jonathan-wilkinson-slammed-accepting-nuclear-waste
And, the National Observer URL you link to is an advertisement.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/11/news/advertisement-nuclear-industry-jonathan-wilkinson-slammed-accepting-nuclear-waste
It is in the URL.
/2023/10/11/news/advertisement-
It is really bizarre that I can't read it with my usual browser, it being an advertisement. It is paywalled. But that's how National Observer rolls I guess.
I do have other browsers, and in another browser I can read it.
Title: ‘An advertisement for the nuclear industry’: Jonathan Wilkinson slammed for accepting nuclear waste strategy
Ok, it is NOT an advertisement, it is an actual article and that was just part of the title. Not obvious when behind a paywall.
Here's probably the most pertinent prose? ...
(Wilkinson was extremely anti-nuclear. What happened?)
I agree with May's critique that "AtkinsRéalis only arrived on the nuclear scene once it bought Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for a bargain, basement price from the Harper government".
Absolutely. It is a national tragedy. But Elizabeth May did perpetually devalue AECL up to that firesale. It is not literally her fault, but that's a bit like saying "worthless POS worthless POS worthless POS oh hey you sold AECL like it was a worthless POS?"
Again, what Elizabeth May had to say about AECL was probably not very pertinent to what happened, but she did see it as a liability and not an asset.
Today I think we can probably consider the possibility that it was an incredibly valuable asset.
But you're probably focused on...
...ok. Can you consider why Wilkinson might be doing this? Maybe he's just a politician who once climbed the C.N. Tower, as one does, and MAYBE has seen SOME value in ultra-low-carbon nuclear power?
THE LOWEST CARBON source of energy on planet Earth, according to United Nations ECE Lifecycle Report?
https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options
Is that fact not pertinent? Can you not share your thoughts on UN ECE's report?
How does a policy proposal which would stop BLANKET-OPPOSITION to civilian nuclear power MUZZLE?
You, yourself said...
...you posted that on Colin's motion "On Nuclear Power" and overtly pro-nuclear policy proposal.
Since GPC has a host of existing anti-nuclear policies, how are nuclear-neutral and pro-nuclear GPC members NOT being stifled NOW?
(Are they really, due to Article 7.3.13? I don't know. But it is a logical conclusion of the argument you've put forward.)
Did you mean to post this on my proposal, or Colin's, and you posted on mine by mistake? My proposal is NEUTRAL.
We should debate proposed reactors design-by-design. Site by site. Which proposal is THE WORST. Which proposal is THE BEST? Fight the worst the hardest. Consider compromise on the best. Can you even do that, if you're supposedly bound by Article 7.3.13 to insist fission is ALWAYS bad, uranium mining is ALWAYS bad, exporting uranium is ALWAYS bad, exporting nuclear reactors is ALWAYS bad?
That's our policy now.
Canadian exported uranium is used in nuclear reactors all over the world to produce ultra-low-carbon electricity. It displaces 260 megatonnes of CO2 per year. This offsets a third of Canada’s 730 megatonnes of annual emissions.
I don't dispute GPC (and yourself) have some valid criticisms of the nuclear industry. But you fail to acknowledge that there's another perspective as valid as your own. And it has been left out of GPC discussion.
THIS IS IT. Right here in this bloody comment section. Nowhere else. And as GPC's official Nuclear Critic, are YOU not going to acknowledge my assertion that you personally spread mis-information when you hosted Dr. Helen Caldicott on your podcast RADIOACTIVE?
You brought it up. You mentioned it. I asked for your-recommended-episode, no response. So I've listened to only 1 episode of your podcast (Caldicott, the latest one) and it contains mis-information.
If there is a meta-problem here... if Article 7.3.13 is suppressing GPC debate then I'm open to inspecting Article 7.3.13. I think I get why such a policy would exist, but I don't want people opposed to nuclear power to be silenced either, if that's an actual effect of Article 7.3.13.
I'm a better nuclear advocate because I try to listen to your perspective. But it is very frustrating that we continue to communicate indirectly, I feel that I am responding to your comments, and you keep posting fresh tangents.
Have you debated with a climate-change-denier lately? Isn't that typically how it feels when you do?
Loading comments ...