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
There is one other long-standing Green member-made policies that would have to be rescinded, should this motion be approved by members: our first, original member-made policy, from 1988. One could say, "let's cut out the heart of the Party". This is what it means to be Green. I hope we never forget, never rescind, and continue to stay true to our Ecologically Wise and Nonviolent roots:
"1988 - Peace and Security.....・ The Canadian Greens would support a nuclear-free policy for Canada which includes: ・the cessation of exploration for mining of radioactive materials; ・ the shut-down of the nuclear industry including nuclear power plants; the cessation of trade in nuclear technology inside and outside Canada with the exception, (at this time), of that related to medical purposes; ・ the banning of nuclear weapons and related technology from Canada; ・ the declaration of Canada as a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone, thus requiring proof that persons wishing to enter Canada prove that they or their vehicles are not carrying nuclear weapons.... "
We would also have to rescind our support from UNDRIP, since the nuclear industry (with approval from Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) is storing radioactive waste on Indigenous territories without their Free, Prior and Informed consent.
This policy change would, of course, require full member voting and consent—no one is suggesting otherwise. But it’s worth noting that no member-made policy is immutable or sacrosanct; political policy is not religious scripture, nor should it be. While honouring our past is important, Greens strive for scientifically sound, evidence-based policy, which means we must adapt as new knowledge and evidence emerge.
Our understanding of nuclear energy, climate urgency, and Indigenous consent has evolved since 1988. Nuclear energy is now recognized worldwide by experts as one of the safest, most reliable, low-carbon options crucial to our decarbonization goals. And contrary to the suggestion that nuclear projects inherently lack Indigenous consent, many Indigenous communities have actively partnered in and benefited from these projects. Generalizing all nuclear initiatives as anti-Indigenous is an unfairly and dangerously false narrative which disregards this diversity and growing collaboration.
It’s time to align Green policies with today’s realities, not outdated ideology. Embracing nuclear alongside renewables DOES honour our core values of ecological wisdom and nonviolence values by focusing on the most effective ways to combat climate change and build a sustainable energy future.
Sarah, I can agree with some of what you have said and all of what Gordon's added.
For me the major distinction we need to introduce (including to the original 1988 resolution) is that nuclear power is not the same as nuclear weapons, and not a requirement for the latter. I have always interpreted "nuclear-free" as applying to nuclear weapons. We must not encourage a world in which mutually assured annihilation is even remotely possible. To extend the interpretation to nuclear power is myopic in the extreme. Reliance on wind and solar is dedicating vast tracts of valuable land (yes, deserts and sea shores are invaluable without machinery on them) just to generate quasi-renewable power, quasi because they need infrastructures that are not particularly green or sustainable. It's a waste of such valuable land.
Greens need to gain some maturity in learning about the technologies of power production and their impact on the environment. It is highly naive to designate some technologies as "green " such as wind and solar and -cringe -hydro power. This is not to say that we must never employ these technologies , but we must acknowledge their impact. In my area, I am more afraid of the ecological impact of the Meaford pumping storage proposal ( green label) than of the deep repository for nuclear waste. The grave danger in all we undertake lies with the tyranny of economic growth
Sarah, yes, in this 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.)
Can you please confirm you've looked at the United Nations ECE Lifecycle report? Because I keep mentioning it, it is cited in my policy proposal, and yet you keep (in your other posts) suggesting that alternatives are lower-impact. Nuclear is the lowest-impact.
My GPC involvement (starting 2006) 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 "An Inconvenient Truth" was released in?
https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html (External link)
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 we continue to blanket-oppose 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".
Let's all tell young voters that fighting nuclear power is "the heart of the party!"
Loading comments ...