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 Gordon McDowell
Philip, folks trying to figure out which energy sources are actually safe, rather than give a feeling of safety, use metrics like /kWh or /TWh. How much bad stuff happens per quantity of delivered electricity?
By those metrics nuclear is among the safest, and the lowest impact on both human health and the environment.
Safety: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Human and Environmental Impact: https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options
That's "Our World In Data" and The United Nations... both respected institutions I'd hope you agree.
I've cited them in my policy proposal.
If you're worried about something other than /kWh impacts... you're raising nebulous "problems" and "locked in economics" and "insanity in the world"...
I want the cleanest, safest energy source possible. And to-date I haven't seen anything which moves nuclear out of the safe-and-clean side.
When you raise the spectre of war... Ukraine has already had a tank battle in a nuclear power plant's parking lot and NOTHING HAPPENED. Every year that ticks by WITHOUT nuclear power plants being struck be adversaries, that is data. We've had civilian nuclear power plants since (Shippingport) 1957, and those 67 years are also worth considering.
During that time nuclear power has delivered THE lowest-carbon energy from any source on Earth. (That is according to the United Nations please see that report.) It has resulted in among the fewest casualties /kWh.
Are we just going to pretend those 67 years never happened?
Hear, hear! Let's be absolutely crystal clear here: NO ONE is suggesting the party completely abandon renewables or go nuclear-only. Not at all. We really need to get away from such zero-sum-game, paranoid, conspiratorial thinking. This proposal is simply advocating for nuclear to have a seat at the clean energy table—because it’s been a truly safe, reliable, clean power source in Canada for over half a century. If we’re truly serious about tackling climate change - which we darn well should be as Greens; our central focus! - we need EVERY available tool, including nuclear, which data consistently shows as one of the safest and lowest-impact options per kilowatt-hour.
This continued opposition to nuclear relies on selective, cherry-picked, incomplete data and outdated, exaggerated fears -- none of which align with current science or the climate emergency we’re facing. This rigid stance is holding the party back from reaching more voters who want a pragmatic, evidence-based approach. Embracing nuclear alongside renewables isn’t ideological—it’s logical, given that nuclear’s life-cycle emissions are as low as wind and solar, with unmatched reliability. And just as cost-effective as renewables once you factor in ALL costs associated with the comparable life-cycles of each/all energy sources over the span of decades.
Thank you for pointing to reputable sources like Our World in Data and the UN’s life-cycle assessments—these are essential for anyone weighing the real impacts of energy choices. With 67 years of nuclear power proving itself as a safe, clean, and resilient option, why the heck should we ignore it?! That makes no sense whatsoever! We as Green have the foremost responsibility to lead with a full toolbox, especially on climate change as THE most pressing issue of our time.
Loading comments ...