Green Party of Saskatchewan Calls for Referendum on Nuclear

[Oscar]

The Green Party of Saskatchewan Calls for Referendum on Nuclear Power

For Immediate Release March 30, 2009

The Sask Party is attempting to pass a motion that will give complete support to the development of nuclear power generation and the growth of Saskatchewan’s value-added uranium industry. The Green Party of Saskatchewan (GPS) opposes this motion, questioning the potential benefits to the people of Saskatchewan that the motion promises, and would like to first hear from the people of Saskatchewan. The GPS is calling for the Sask Party to consult the residents of the province with a clearly worded referendum.

Public meetings were held by concerned citizens along the North Saskatchewan River in which the public, government, and people on both sides of the issue were invited. Premier Wall is choosing to govern via opinion polls and vaguely worded telephone surveys instead of through interaction with the people of Saskatchewan at community meetings.

“There is obvious public concern about this issue,” stated Amber Jones, “yet the government refuses to engage in a serious debate. If the development of nuclear power is actually beneficial for this province then why are they so afraid to ask the public for their opinion?”

The GPS would like to see a thorough examination of the issues surrounding nuclear power and believes that a clearly worded referendum campaign is the best way to debate the health risks, safety issues, and environmental concerns, as well as the costs of nuclear power.

“I am extremely worried that the Sask Party is going to burden the province with a long term project that could hamper future governments’ and citizens financial security.” Jones cautioned, “the residents of Ontario are still paying for their nuclear debt every month on their utility bills, and I believe that the residents of this province should have a clear vote on an issue that wasn’t debated during the election and could have long term consequences for the province.”

-30-

For more information contact:

Amber Jones – Leader
Saskatoon
306-381-0887

Tory McGreggor
Regina
306-525-1746

----------------------------------------

Amber Jones
Leader - Green Party of Saskatchewan
306-653-5836
ajones@greenparty.ca

[Oscar]

Nuclear debate rages on

Published in the Meridian Booster (Lloydminster) on August 21, 2009

http://www.meridianbooster.com/ArticleD ... ?e=1710970
Posted By Letter to the Editor

To the editor:

I read a recent pro-nuclear letter that requires a response.

Sadly, the tone of his letter is one that causes the debate to degenerate into angry confrontation. For the coming discussion, no matter what side we are on, we are going to have to conduct ourselves with honesty, respect and dignity. Calling those on the other side "ignorant" is not helpful, especially when there are so many valid concerns.

Claims that we already use a great many nuclear-based technologies every day. This is true, but it is a "red herring". Questions that must be asked, regardless of whether we use smoke detectors in our homes include: How many tax dollars are going to go into paying for nuclear power in Alberta. Is the power to be exported? Where will the profit go. What will this do to consumer rates? What provision for water use is being planned? What will be done with the waste? Where will these plants be built and how will the power be moved to consumers?

Claims Canada's nuclear power generation technology is better than that which was used in Chernobyl (gosh, I hope so). He even gives readers a link to find more information. He sends readers to the AECL website, a company that profits nuclear power and maintaining nuclear facilities:

Hardly a neutral source for information about the nuclear industry. This also neglects to point out a number of issues with CANDU reactors:

In 1997 Ontario Hydro had to shut down seven nuclear reactors because of poor performance and safety concerns. The closure of these reactors was the largest single long-term nuclear shutdown by any nuclear utility in the world.

The cost of the restart escalated from $800 million in 1999 to $1.025 billion at the end of September 2002. It is estimated that the start-up of Reactor 4 will cost another $230 million, and the additional three reactors will cost $300 to $400 million each. Thus the cost for restarting reactor 4 alone will be $1.255 billion, with a likely additional $1.2 billion for the
other three reactors, totaling $2.455 billion. Outside of Ontario, there are only two nuclear power reactors in Canada, one operated by Hydro Quebec and one operated by New Brunswick Power. Both began commercial operation in 1983, and at twenty years of age both reactors need full-scale refurbishment, costing billions of dollars.

He also uses the oft-used argument that "wind turbines kill millions of birds annually." This claim comes from statistics around the first generation of wind turbines. They were built of steel girders and often placed in migratory routes. Today's turbines cause no more casualties in bird populations globally than window strikes in urban areas. This argument ignores the potential of solar, geo-thermal and bio-mass energy alternatives, as well as modern conservation techniques... none of which cause long-term damage to the environment and would provide a wider range of employment opportunities to Albertans.

The coming debate regarding nuclear power and its introduction into Alberta is one that must be held in a respectful manner. There is a great deal of money behind the pro-nuclear argument and it will be a powerful one.

It is only when arguments speak for themselves, and facts govern decisions, that the best policies for Alberta's future can be chosen.

I know many will point to my association with the Green Party as proof of my bias. Be that as it may, I believe this debate is one that must be conducted openly and with respect and dignity. Alberta has not faced such an important choice ... ever. The consequences of going nuclear are irreversible. We all need to be involved and conscious of our role in democracy.

William Munsey
Green Party, Vegreville-Wainwright

[Oscar]

Green Party Says Premier Is Betraying Democracy with Plans to Build Small Nuclear Reactors in Saskatchewan

Press Release For Immediate Release January 20, 2011

Green Party of Saskatchewan Leader Larissa Shasko is outraged by Premier Wall's announcement made yesterday of plans to build small nuclear reactors in our province. According to Shasko, "The Government has not listened to the public consultations in 2009 which overwhelmingly said 'we don't want the nuclear industry in our province.' In doing so, Brad Wall has completely turned a blind eye to our democratic rights as citizens."

Small nuclear reactor technology has already been rejected by the people of this province in the 2009 public consultations. Small nuclear reactors come with a huge price tag and do not make economic sense when compared to the alternatives of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy conservation. According to the Saskatchewan Greens, small nuclear reactors pose unnecessary safety risks, pollute our environment and are not needed. "As coal plants age, energy conservation and energy efficiency need to be maximized, and decentralized renewable energy needs to be implemented at a large scale," states Shasko.

Shasko also warns that building small nuclear reactors in our province would leave Saskatchewan wide open as a location for a nuclear waste dump in our province. Saskatchewan communities are currently being targeted by the nuclear industry for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste. This has consequences for all people in Saskatchewan. According to Shasko, "We need legislation passed in our province immediately to ban the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Saskatchewan -- to protect our province from becoming a nuclear waste dump site. If we build small nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan, we would then be creating nuclear waste here, so we would be even more heavily targeted as a site for a national or international nuclear waste dump. Brad Wall has been misleading voters on the nuclear issue, right from reactors to waste. Brad Wall's commitment to the nuclear industry over the democratic orders of Saskatchewan citizens has shown that the Sask Party can not be trusted by voters."

Shasko points out that the Green Party of Saskatchewan has a different vision for our province. "Jobs are abundant in the renewable energy sector," says Shasko, and the Green Party of Saskatchewan’s plan to create a decentralized renewable energy economy will put both power and money into the hands of Saskatchewan people. The Wall Government has projected that Saskatchewan’s energy needs will continue to rise drastically, regardless of a basically stagnant population and a worsening climate crisis, but the Green Party recognizes that if we want to survive as a planet, our energy needs must be reduced. Saskatchewan has barely seen energy conservation utilized, which is unfortunate because energy conservation is the most cost effective and fastest way to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of taking the climate crisis seriously, the Sask Party Government is going to let the rate of GHG emissions in this province grow drastically to allow for an increased pace and scale of resource extraction. The Wall Government wants to see every last bit of natural resources in our province taken out of the ground over the short-term future leaving nothing but ecological destruction behind for future generations. According to the Saskatchewan Greens, our resource royalities are grossly inadequate. Shasko notes that nearly all of the resources mined here are exported across borders and overseas where those resources pollute the air, water, and soil of other regions. "Under Brad Wall‘s leadership (or lack of leadership), Saskatchewan has become an exporter of climate change," states Shasko. She notes that Saskatchewan’s Minister of the Environment was sent to the Copenhagen climate conference to lobby against a deal from being signed that would interfere with the Wall Government’s plan to develop the tar sands in northern Saskatchewan. According to Shasko, "We can not continue on this path to eco-destruction. Millions if not billions of dollars will be wasted on small reactors that will utimately be used to supply power to the mining industry, as stated in the Government's Uranium Development Partnership Report. Nuclear powered tar sands is an absurd concept!!" The provincial Greens take the position that the mining industry's growing demands for power should not burden public taxpayers.

Shasko states, "Under a Green Government, we will become world leaders in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. As a province, we were leaders with healthcare; now it is time to lead the way in the 21st century to a decentralized renewable energy economy. Unlike the Wall Government, the Green Party of Saskatchewan has been listening to the concerns of those people in our province who are suffering during this time of economic hardship, and we know it doesn’t have to be this way if the voters of this province choose not to re-elect a provincial government who is committed only to the interests of big business while turning a blind eye to increased stress in the lives of the people who live here."

--30--

For more information or interviews, please contact

Larissa Shasko, Party Leader, 306-690-1404 larissa.shasko@gmail.com