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 Blake Hamilton
@randy_schelhas : I'm sorry if my previous comments came across as condescending or disrespectful; that certainly wasn't my intention! My goal is to focus on the issues and facts, not to insult or belittle anyone. I genuinely believe we can have a productive conversation even when we disagree. Discussions around nuclear and energy policy are complex, and it’s natural for us to be passionate and protective of our views. I appreciate everyone’s perspectives, and I’ll do my best to keep the tone constructive and focused on the ideas at hand, not on any kind of personal attacks or "pop psychology", as you call it. Though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that... But anyway...
Your concerns about public perception and the emotional resistance to nuclear energy are valid and quite pressing, especially within the Green base. However, I'd argue that dismissing nuclear expansion purely out of fear of voter backlash risks basing our policies on public perception rather than sound science. Which undermines our integrity, and would cost us even more voter support. We should also balance that out in terms of how many voters we'd gain by aligning with sound science, and the majority of Canadians who get that and support nuclear energy.
Yes, people are fearful of plutonium, but addressing those fears with transparent facts—like the CNSC statement that our CANDU reactors produce less plutonium than light-water reactors—can help us have an evidence-based conversation rather than one dominated by fear.
If our role as Greens is to advocate for effective, scientifically supported climate solutions, we should aim to inform and educate rather than steer clear of tough issues. Dismissing nuclear power expansion because it might drive some votes to the NDP overlooks the opportunity to broaden our base by promoting a balanced, pragmatic approach. Many environmentalists and scientists who care about decarbonization recognize the need for a low-carbon baseload source like nuclear.
While YouTube videos or fact sheets alone won’t sway deeply held fears, neither will avoiding the topic. By presenting a balanced, fact-driven stance that includes _both_ renewables and nuclear, we can appeal to a wider audience and position ourselves as truly serious about climate action - which our current anti-nuclear stance contradicts and undermines.
There are much better options for utilizing our CANDU reactors particularly given that 43% of Canadians do not favour nuclear power. We are after all trying to win an election or two here as opposed to having the most perfect policy. Discounting emotional reasoning in favour of logical reasoning is in my opinion not the way to go. I would invite you to read page B2 of today's Toronto Star which happened to jump out at me when I was reading my daily newspapers.
For certain you know that China is 70% coal fired electricity production which produces the more problematic sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide greenhouse gasses. I wired instrumentation loops for real time off-gas detection for a KOBM oxygen steelmaking furnace early in my career and I have technical ideas about reducing the most dangerous greenhouse gasses produced by burning coal but that is another matter.
With respect to China, you will note that Candu Energy has obtained a lifetime contract for refurbishment an maintenance of two reactors there. Their parent company has onboarded 1000 employees in expectation of increasing business which could very well be selling new CANDUs to China (whereas many Canadians would fight vigorously against new CANDUs in Canada). The parent company Aikins also seems to have some gaseous expertise having recently signed a contract with partner Westinghouse involving a pair of gaseous diffusion plants in the USA.
We have a Canadian company with real potential to export technology to where is most desperately needed to stop climate change by coal fired electricity generation. China and India are the two major coal polluters worldwide and Canada should be offering every bit of help we can to them. We need to bury our differences with them and get on with tackling dangerous climate change for a win-win solution.
Thanks for listening
@randy_schelhas -- A thoughtful and nuanced perspective. Great insights, especially regarding Canada’s opportunity to export CANDU technology to countries like China and India, where coal remains a dominant energy source. I agree that addressing coal dependency in those regions is crucial for global climate action, and Canada’s nuclear expertise is a powerful tool in that fight.
However, I’d like to address a few points in your argument:
1) Balancing public opinion with policy:
While 43% of Canadians may not currently favour nuclear power, public opinion is not static. Many of those concerns stem from fear or misinformation rather than fact-based reasoning. As Greens, we have a responsibility to lead with evidence and educate the public on why nuclear—alongside renewables—is vital for achieving our climate goals. Yes, winning elections is important, but credible, science-based policies are what ultimately build trust and long-term support.
2) Emotional reasoning vs. logical reasoning:
Emotional reasoning should not be ignored, but it must be guided by facts to ensure effective decision-making. Emotional appeals against nuclear often rely on outdated, exaggerated fears about safety, waste, and proliferation. These concerns can and should be addressed with transparency, as nuclear is one of the safest and most reliable low-carbon energy sources available today. Balancing logic and emotion is key to fostering meaningful conversations, but emotional reasoning alone risks holding back progress.
3) Domestic nuclear vs. exporting technology:
While exporting CANDU reactors to coal-heavy countries like China and India is a noble goal, it doesn’t negate the need for domestic action. If we reject nuclear expansion at home, it sends a mixed message. How can we advocate for others to adopt technology we are unwilling to embrace ourselves? Canada should lead by example, demonstrating the benefits of nuclear alongside renewables in decarbonizing our own grid.
4) Broader solutions:
Your technical background and ideas for reducing dangerous coal emissions are valuable and reflect the complexity of the climate challenge. However, retrofitting coal plants or introducing stopgap measures won't fully eliminate their emissions. Nuclear, paired with renewables, provides a proven, scalable path to a clean energy future.
So basically, I completely agree with your call for collaboration and innovation to tackle climate change, but we shouldn’t underestimate the role that nuclear can and should play—both internationally and here at home. By leveraging Canada’s nuclear expertise and leading with evidence-based policies, we can make meaningful strides in reducing emissions while building public support for clean energy solutions.
We are in agreement that Canadian nuclear expansion is likely inevitable, however I don't think we want the endorsement of expansion in order to maintain unity within our party. I sat with the people in the back of our recent Ontario Convention and I could see that they were visibly hurt, due to plans for nuclear waste to be buried in their jurisdictions. There are no immediate plans that I know of for a new nuclear facility in Ontario and to my knowledge the federal Green Party has not endorsed expansion in their proposal.
As a landlord, I've dealt with misinformation, emotional reasoning, threats and violence. It's a fact of life even as I lose money and work for free that people get angry as they struggle as well. These are also the internal reactive forces that can impede us as a party. I work hard to try to be a force for good in my tenant's lives.
I don't disagree with the points that you have made however you might understand my analogous thinking in that green is in the middle of the visible light full spectrum being an inert colour that is not used in photosynthesis. Green isn't really needed to make plants grow but it is seen by our eyes and is both reflective and penetrates through foliage enabling clear vision (of plants) by human eyes.
We as Greens can guide both the reactive right and the reactive left wings of politics and create vision if we do not take controversial positions and claim the true peaceful power in the middle ground. Let the candidates support or disagree with nuclear power expansion as they canvass. That is how we can win elections.
Loading comments ...