MP Jenica Atwin Quits Green Party To Join The Liberals

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I think saying floor crossers betrayed voters is inaccurate. We elect MPs, not parties even though our personal motive might be due to party affiliation or the leader of said party. 

...

Elected MPs are the voice of the people. 

I can't think of one MP who puts the interests of their constituents ahead of their party. Our Canadian parliamentary system demands party discipline of MP's not loyalty to their constituents.

BC NDP MP's have a slightly different attitude. I think that Gord Johns will put the interests of his constituents ahead of the party but unfortunately he is so concerned with local issues that he allows the central office to determine his foreign policy. When I lived in Burnaby I first had Svend and then Bill for MP's and neither of them bowed to the central office. I do accept thought that they and a few other's are the exceptions not the norm.

Pondering wrote:

MPs are pointless at the moment. Might as well save the salaries and just give points to the parties to decide who will be king for four years. MPs don't even get to talk to the Prime Minister. The House of Commons is a scam. 

MP's used to have much more power when they selected their respective party's leader and were also able to depose them whenever they wanted. That system of maintaining confidence is still used in Australia. I think going back to that system would be an improvement but I don't see it happening. I think the responsibility of party members should be choosing excellent candidates to run for office. I think candidates and MP's should be in charge of party policy.

Edzell wrote:

@Pondering; I understand your points but I think that in practice, in the way election outcomes are actually decided, they're not generally given much thought.

Pondering wrote:

...... The only power a voter has is to choose their representative, not the party or leader......

Not the only power. They have the power to choose their preferred represntatives on any basis whatsoever. In my observation the vast majority make their choice based precisely on the candidate's party and its leadership. I deplore this but ..... ??

Quote:

Our system is designed to allow MPs the freedom to sit as independents or join a different party. 

For most, that's not much of a choice, for the reasons I've already suggested.

I choose who I will vote for based on PM/party policy. That is motive. Voting is an action. I vote for a representative whether I like it or not. If I want to vote for a party or a PM, I would have to change the system.  MPs have been so disempowered that they are seat warmers. Cabinet ministers are little more. 

cap·i·tal·ism

/ˈkapədlˌizəm/

 

 

 

Learn to pronounce

noun

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

​Capitalism is democracy. Nothing could be more democratic than someone creating something or performing a service in trade for something else.  We replaced bartering with a symbol, money. Capitalism isn't the problem. Promotion of the free market and anti-government ideology are the problems. 

The right turned criticism against it into critcism against government in general. The left fell into the trap because we heavily criticize all governments in power because they are on the right. Unfortunately that plays into their privatize everything hands. 

Edzell wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Edzell wrote:

I'd love to be able to vote for someone who just seemed honest and intelligent, with good common sense and a handle on the concept of fairness.

Unfortunately, elections in our system have always been controlled by the already powerful... [snip] ...It is an interesting question whether it would be easier for these interests to control a parliament of non-partisan MPs, or a duopoly of well-behaved parties. I certainly would expect that such interests could easily derail any bill which they found problematic in such a parliament of individuals.

You suggest that the individual members could easily be bought? I did say I wanted to vote for honest persons, but if you're doubting there would be enough of those to form an incorruptible majority I won't argue.

Quote:

Whatever the answer may be, I believe that capitalism and democracy are fundamentally incompatible

Hmm, not sure. Would you rule out the desirability of a controlled, regulated capitalism? Please understand that I'm not versed in  economic or political theory, but although not learned I believe I have useful thoughts & wonderings:).

 

I think the lack of compatibility between Capitalism and Democracy comes down to the problem that:

• Capitalism has inbuilt class hierarchies and relies on the exploitation of labour to produce value.
• Capitalism requires continual growth which means that it depends on ever expanding exploitation.

How do we regulate our way out of that? A system that requires class hierarchy and increasing exploitation is going to have a hard time with democracy. This can be seen in how autocratic most workplaces and firms in Capitalism, how Capitalist powers have always used military and covert force to suppress democracy around the world, and how limited democracy is even in the most advanced Capitalist countries.

Another good example of this is how the ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’ ended. Capitalism in the West was at it’s most regulated and shackled in the late 60s/early 70s and when it entered crisis the response of the elites was to attack democracy, labour power and government regulation.

All that said, I think regulation and reform is absolutely worth fighting for. I don’t see a revolution overthrowing Capitalism anytime soon and the only way that has a chance of happening is if the system goes into terminal crisis. While that is increasingly more likely, I think the more class consciousness and political organizing developed through the struggle for reform before that point, the better. Despite all the division, there is a broad consensus on the left between Socialists, Social Democrats and even some Liberals that things like health, education, housing, water, food etc. should not be commodities and should taken out of the Capitalist system. In my opinion that is a type of anti-capitalism and while electoral politics alone isn’t enough, I think state power could still be harnessed to transform these from commodities to rights and I think a broad coalition is the way there. I don’t know if Michael agrees with that but where I think I probably agree with him is that satisfaction with partial reforms and regulations while allowing the fundamental system of Capitalism to exist will only ever result in short-term gains. Historically, Capitalism doesn’t spend a lot of time rolling over and playing dead. Reforms and regulations are a good way to chain the vampire to the rock but forgetting that it needs a stake to the heart is why this horror movie got a whole new neoliberal act.

Edzell wrote:

I believe there are many things we could/would agree on but, having read this post, any urge to discuss them with you evaporates.

Sem.an.tics

Pol.it.ics

Learn to recognise the difference.

Apparently you don't know the difference.  Words have definitions.  That isn't semantics.  I took you at your word. If you don't mean your words that is your problem not mine. 

I'm just really, really thankful I haven't fallen for the idea that a dictionary written by someone, somewhere, can define what I - or you - actually mean by what we say. Communicative discussion depends on ascertaining & honouring the real meaning  intended by each involved individual. A degree of unbiased curiosity is required.

'I am not a token': Freeland Fires Back...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7957996/green-party-annamie-paul-freeland-tru...

"...I'm a proud feminist who serves in a feminist government with a feminist Prime Minister."

And the farmer hauled another load away.

Edzell wrote:

Anamie Paul's statements sound more & more as if Donald Trump writes them for her.

Here is the GPC Facebook page:

(1) Green Party of Canada | Facebook

...I think there are at least THREE posters there who are sockpuppets of either Paul, Zatzman, or both.  

Check the posts of the following "people":

"Jude Abrams"

"Christopher Lirette"

"Sue Foley-Curie"

"Steve Hirchak"

"Kelly King"

They are all doing nothing but repetitive "hasbara"like talking points.

The grand majority of people support capitalism because the alternative is for all enterprises to be government owned unless you have a different definition of capitalism than the dictionary.  That's just as bad as people who want everything privatized. 

Ending capitalism even if it were possible would not end exploitation and abuse by powerful people. It would just happen under a different system. So far social democracies seem to be the most successful and they are capitalist. 

It can be fun to imagine a radically different world in which there is no capitalism but I don't need a crystal ball to know that will not happen in my lifetime nor anyone else alive today. Nor will all housing be socialized. I hope we get to a point at which everyone is entitled to decent housing and companies must share profits with workers but I don't have a problem with private companies building better or larger homes and selling them to richer people. I have no problem with people being richer than I am. 

Someone, I think you, spoke of the sixties and seventies as the golden age of capitalism but it could come back stronger than ever in Canada over the next 20 years, and in the US as well.  

There is no gold standard anymore. Money mostly exists digitally. It isn't even printed anymore. It is worth whatever powerful people decide it is worth. Just bringing in maximum compensation for executives based on a ratio of the lowest paid worker would be huge and I don't foresee even that happening anytime soon. 

At any other time in history shutting down the tourism industry would have been worse than the great Depression.  Tourism represents 6.5% of Canada's GDP, in comparison oil, natural gas, and electricity combined represents 10% of our GDP.  Some individuals have suffered serious financial harm but overall the economy is fine even if inflation is high. That is because powerful people fixed the system so that it can't fail, or if it is failing there are mechanisms to save it. Capitalism is not going to implode and we can't even convince Canadians to go with PR so I don't see them being convinced to end capitalism. People support pharmacare and basic income and are supportive of worker owned businesses and co-op housing and would support a multitude of other programs. Ending capitalism. Not so much. 

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

So far social democracies seem to be the most successful and they are capitalist. 

I think most would consider a social democracy to be a mix of capitalism and socialism. AKA, a "mixed economy." I think a purely capitalist economy would have a government that just protects capital. The kind of economy people would not vote for democratically.

Yes, and it is a form of capitalism, the thing people are arguing should no longer exist in any form. I am 100% in favor of massively expanding the social part of social democracy and I think that sentiment is widespread and mainstream. There is lots of support for basic income which would go a long way to putting us on a path to social justice. 

To argue for or predict total financial meltdown in the belief that it will destroy capitalism defies logic. If anything capitalism would go into overdrive as it would be every man for himself. The fight for action on climate change would be over. 

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Yes, and it is a form of capitalism, the thing people are arguing should no longer exist in any form.

How many people are arguing that private ownership should no longer exist in any form?

Everyone saying that capitalism and democracy are incompatible, assuming we want democracy. If someone says they are anti-socialism I respond does that mean you are against medicare because medicare is socialist. It follows that if someone is anti-capitalist they are against all private ownership of businesses. It's an extreme position and it is not at all democratic. 

If capitalism and democracy are incompatible then the right wing is correct, socialism and democracy are even more incompatible. 

The truth is neither are incompative with democracy. 

jerrym wrote:

 

  Trudeau himself now says his goal is net zero emissions by 2050 at the same time he has been supporting Keystone until Biden ended it, doubling Line 3 from Alberta to Manitoba and on to the US where it is facing growing indigenous and environmentalist protests, supporting continuing Line 5 through Michigan against local opposition, pushing the Energy East pipeline until it threatened its Quebec MPs winning their ridings, proposing building another pipeline to run from Ontario to the Saguenay for export to Europe and the rest of the world until the finances collapsed, allowing exploration wells that have already tested positive twice for a new oilfield off the Newfoundland coast, providing the money to finish a oil processing plant that the company saw as unviable in Newfoundland and providing another $300 million for further exploration off Newfoundland, and being in the process of redefining greenhouse gas emissions to make them appear lower than they actually are.

The Trudeau Liberal government knows how to talk about indigneous issues for electoral purposes but has failed to act on key indigenous demands, including running pipelines through First Nations without their consent, failing to solve the boil water advisories on many First Nations communities after six years in power, and opposing First Nations court cases decisions awarding money even after they win at the Supreme Court.  The Trudeau Liberals are denying any legal responsibility for damage to First Nations cultures from removing indigenous children from their families and culture. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/reparations-residential-school-1.6050501) Closer to home, will Atwin say anything challenging the Liberal government on Mi'kmaq fishing rights, especially when 72% of Canadians "say the best path forward in the Mi’kmaq fishing dispute is to make sure that Indigenous fishing rights are respected" (https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/72-per-cent-of-canadians-say-mi-kmaq-fishi...)

What are the odds of her speaking out against the Trudeau Liberals on any of these issues and what happens to her if she does? Is she now just another 'good' Liberal MP?

After Prime Minister Mulroney formed a government, John Crosby famously told reporters, "If we told you what we were going to do, you wouldn't have voted for us." It sounds pretty cynical, but it is very insightful. Canadians are all in favour of fighting climate change until they realize it means transitioning from fossil fuels to nuclear power. Forget the fact that more people die in car accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have died from nuclear power accidents world wide in the history of nuclear power generation. Canadians are all in favour of resolving the many issues with the First Nations, until the government actually does something about it. Thats when the voters lower the hammer. (Kelowna Accord?)

I view these realities with horror but that doesn't make them any less real.

What has this to do with the trouble in the Green Party?

melovesproles wrote:

queenmandy85 wrote:

 

What has this to do with the trouble in the Green Party?

What do car accidents in Saskatchewan and John Crosby have to do with the troubles in the Green Party?

Fair point. 

Pondering wrote:

Everyone saying that capitalism and democracy are incompatible, assuming we want democracy. If someone says they are anti-socialism I respond does that mean you are against medicare because medicare is socialist. It follows that if someone is anti-capitalist they are against all private ownership of businesses. It's an extreme position and it is not at all democratic. 

If capitalism and democracy are incompatible then the right wing is correct, socialism and democracy are even more incompatible. 

The truth is neither are incompative with democracy. 

Maybe democracy is only compatible with a proper mix of both socialism and capitalism? Maybe democracy is incompatible with both extreme capitalism and extreme socialism? Maybe democracy requires a "golden mean" between socialism and capitalism? Of course this begs the question of what the right mix should be. The right wants more capitalism and less socialism while the left wants more socialism and less capitalism. As things stand now the social democratic countries in Northern Europe seem to have the best mix. Countries like Taiwan and Singapore also seem to be coming up with good innovations.

Pondering wrote:

The grand majority of people support capitalism because the alternative is for all enterprises to be government owned unless you have a different definition of capitalism than the dictionary.

Actually, more and more of the Left now define socialism as an economy made up of democratically-managed worker collectives and cooperatives, formed when needed into networks of cooperatives in order to address economies of scale and make large-scale acquisition of materials and distribution of goods and services possible...the vision implicit in Marx's assertion that the workers must control the means of production- which we should now update to saying that the workers should control all workplaces.

The goal in the end was always workers' control, not bureaucratic state ownership.  Bureaucratic state control was always a detour away from the destination of a democratic economy in which no one is exploited, disrespected, devalued or discarded as "deadwood".

There are very few things in life or in the economy we have to run either bureatically or solely for the short-term individual self-interest of the few.  

And if we're going to live most of our lives in some sort of workplace, we should all have a say in how that workplace is run.

JKR wrote:

Maybe democracy is only compatible with a proper mix of both socialism and capitalism? Maybe democracy is incompatible with both extreme capitalism and extreme socialism? Maybe democracy requires a "golden mean" between socialism and capitalism? Of course this begs the question of what the right mix should be. The right wants more capitalism and less socialism while the left wants more socialism and less capitalism. As things stand now the social democratic countries in Northern Europe seem to have the best mix. Countries like Taiwan and Singapore also seem to be coming up with good innovations.

You have it exactly right. I think we are far from an acceptable balance between the two but before we get anywhere near the right balance we have to democratize politics. I am hopeful that the climate crisis will lay heavily on the shoulders of the Liberals, Conservatives and big money. 

The key to change as always begins with public demand. The majority of Canadians support pharmacare but they aren't ready to demand it. The majority of Canadians are concerned about income inequality and climate change but aren't ready to demand change. At least not loudly enough to force political action. The federal government had the right to force Energy East through Quebec. Politically it could not be done because Quebecers, not just their politicians, wouldn't stand for it. Politicans can be forced to accept the will of the people if it is strong enough.

The trick is to motivate people as strongly as Quebecers are motivated against Energy East. When enough people demand change politicians have no choice but to comply. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

To sum up Ken; the syndicalists have had the right idea for nearly a century and a half. Eco-socialists look to places in Spain for some hope and direction. As for the idea that, "property is theft", Proudhon has not become a well known writer, even in left wing circles.

If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to remove a man's mind, will, and personality, is the power of life and death, and that it makes a man a slave. It is murder. Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?

— Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?

Indeed.  And it is important to note that, by "Property", Proudhon would have meant "large landed estates" or factories- he would not have gone along with the later Stalinist/Maoist delusion that "property" meant ANY physical object- i.e. that the state should own your toothbrush, and possibly your teeth.

Pondering wrote:

The trick is to motivate people as strongly as Quebecers are motivated against Energy East. When enough people demand change politicians have no choice but to comply. 

The key is to live in Central Canada, where governments are made or lost. I live in an area of the country where we send 7 MP's to parliament, five NDP and 2 Greens. Those two parties in 2019 polled 58%. I am not sure how I am supposed to affect change when all our MP's are already neither Conservative or Liberal. It is you and other Central Canadian voters who must elect a progressive government, we are already doing our part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election_results_on_Vanco...

First, thank you for taking the time to respond in detail.  Checking the Wikipedia entry gives me the same definition and more as it breaks down various types of capitalism. I am in favor of an ever increasing social capitalism which is as per Wikipedia:

A social market economy is a free-market or mixed-market capitalist system, sometimes classified as a coordinated market economy, where government intervention in price formation is kept to a minimum, but the state provides significant services in areas such as social security, health care, unemployment benefits and the recognition of labor rights through national collective bargaining arrangements.

I think the grand majority of Canadians not just Millennials support the above which is a form of capitalism.

I’ve tried to get into history but the only kind that interests me is art history. I cannot tell you how many times I have looked up the word neoliberalism. I have to look it up every time I use it to make sure I know what I am saying. On the other hand I only had to find out once that Oxide Black and Mars Black are the same pigment, PBk11. Lamp black, bone black and carbon black are all PBk7 and weigh much less than Oxide/Mars. All white pigments are heavy. I love colour therefore I love pigment therefore I remember information about pigments. I only had to see 5th position in ballroom once to commit it to memory because it differs from 5th position ballet which I learned as a child.

When I read about history it’s all this guy did this and that guy did that and everyone is evil and people torture other people. History is horrific. It gives me nightmares and makes me despair for the world. It’s very repetitive anyway. I do regret not remembering certain things that someone here will know. There is a philosopher or something like that whom people like Harper and I think Bush are students of. He defends the need to lie to the public on the basis that leaders are smarter than the common man. The name starts with an S and might be something like Swartz, that might even be it, or not. Straus maybe? I think I remember, Leo Straus except it is two s’s. “Drury argues that Strauss teaches that "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them." I learned about him here.

I have learned some history from Kropotkin (here) about BC and the national railway and about Canadian military action. It’s not that I am entirely disinterested it just has to relate to the present in some way.

There is that thing going on now about confirmation bias because people are in news silos or something to that effect.  I think activists are sometimes in a type of silo in that you know how to talk to each other, but not to people who are not into history or politics. Activist types have very high expectations of people in terms of general knowledge and I think are frustrated by the disinterest. 

To be cont.

Edzell wrote:

<snip>Change is hard. Our luxurious consumerist lifestyle is obscene and there is no way out that doesn't involve accepting either hardship or massive risk. I would choose the first. But it's likely too late anyway; past the tipping point. Who you vote for may ultimately be irrelevant.

Sadly, I think this is correct. I might just quibble a bit about the definition of "hardship". People living in a more sharing but less opulent world might have a lower "standard of living", but a higher degree of satisfaction with their lives.

Edzell wrote:

Quote:

"Step one (in fighting climate change) is to drastically reduce the burning of fossil fuels world wide. How do you accomplish that without causing a lot of hardship"

You can't. Change is hard. Our luxurious consumerist lifestyle is obscene and there is no way out that doesn't involve accepting either hardship or massive risk. I would choose the first. But it's likely too late anyway; past the tipping point. Who you vote for may ultimately be irrelevant.

By far the largest single source of fossil fuel consumption is the military in NATO and its allies. If we ended war we could solve climate change easily. There is no way to solve climate change when our resources are being spent playing war games on every continent and in every ocean.

queenmandy85

Canadians are all in favour of fighting climate change until they realize it means transitioning from fossil fuels to nuclear power. Forget the fact that more people die in car accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have died from nuclear power accidents world wide in the history of nuclear power generation.

The available data on car accident deaths in Saskatchewan and nuclear energy industry deaths do not back up your statement. 

SGI says preliminary statistics show 87 people died from vehicle crashes Saskatchewan in 2020, the second fewest recorded in the past 60 years. In 2019, 71 people died — a record low. The previous record was 73 deaths in 1951. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/87-road-fatalities-saskatche...)

The number of deaths attributable to the nuclear industry vary depending on the source but they number well into the thousands according to many sources. Wikipedia gives the following numbers for just three of the many nuclear accidents. 

Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: A UNSCEAR report proposes 45 total confirmed deaths from the accident as of 2008.[1] This number includes 2 non-radiation related fatalities from the accident itself, 28 fatalities from radiation doses in the immediate following months and 15 fatalities due to thyroid cancer likely caused by iodine-131 contamination; it does not include 19 additional individuals initially diagnosed with acute radiation syndrome who had also died as of 2006, but who are not believed to have died due to radiation doses.[26] The World Health Organization (WHO) suggested in 2006 that cancer deaths could reach 4,000 among the 600,000 most heavily exposed people, a group which includes emergency workers, nearby residents, and evacuees, but excludes residents of low-contaminated areas.[27] A 2006 report, commissioned by the German political party The Greens and sponsored by the Altner Combecher Foundation, predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of worldwide Chernobyl fallout by assuming a linear no-threshold model for very low doses.[28] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[29] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[30]

The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in Russia on 29 September 1957, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident."[31] By contrast, only 6,000 death certificates have been found for residents of the Tech riverside between 1950 and 1982 from all causes of death,[32] though perhaps the Soviet study considered a larger geographic area affected by the airborne plume. The most commonly quoted estimate is 200 deaths due to cancer, but the origin of this number is not clear. More recent epidemiological studies suggest that around 49 to 55 cancer deaths among riverside residents can be associated to radiation exposure.[32] This would include the effects of all radioactive releases into the river, 98% of which happened long before the 1957 accident, but it would not include the effects of the airborne plume that was carried north-east.[33] The area closest to the accident produced 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome, providing the bulk of the data about this condition.[14]:15–29

The Windscale fire resulted when uranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated.[34][35] The severity of the incident was covered up at the time by the UK government, as Prime Minister Harold Macmillan feared that it would harm British nuclear relations with America, and so original reports on the disaster and its health impacts were subject to heavy censorship.[8] The severity of the radioactive fallout was played down, and the release of a highly dangerous isotope during the fire, Polonium-210, was covered up at the time.[36]

Partly because of this, consensus on the precise number of cancer deaths caused in the long term as a result of the radiation leak has changed over time as more information on the incident has come to light.[37] Taking into account the impact of the release of Polonium-210 for the first time, a 1983 UK government report estimated at least 33 cancer fatalities as a result of the incident.[38][34][35] An updated 1988 UK government report estimated that 100 fatalities "probably" resulted from cancers as a result of the releases over 40 to 50 years.[4][5] In 2007, the 50-year anniversary of the fire, new academic research into the health effects of the incident was published by Richard Wakeford, a visiting Professor at the University of Manchester's Dalton Nuclear Institute, and by former UK Atomic Energy Authority researcher, John Garland.[7] Their study concluded that because the actual amount of radiation released in the fire could be double the previous estimates, and that the radioactive plume actually travelled further east, there were 100 to 240 cancer fatalities in the long term as a result of the fire.[8][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by...

Summarizing the reasons not to pursue nuclear energy Green America provided 10 reasons with comments on each one at the url below. 

1. Nuclear waste: The waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years (1). Currently, there are no long-term storage solutions for radioactive waste, and most is stored in temporary, above-ground facilities. These facilities are running out of storage space, so the nuclear industry is turning to other types of storage that are more costly and potentially less safe (2).

2. Nuclear proliferation: There is great concern that the development of nuclear energy programs increases the likelihood of proliferation of nuclear weapons. As nuclear fuel and technologies become globally available, the risk of these falling into the wrong hands is increasingly present. To avoid weapons proliferation, it is important that countries with high levels of corruption and instability be discouraged from creating nuclear programs, and the US should be a leader in nonproliferation by not pushing for more nuclear power at home (3).

3. National security Nuclear power plants are a potential target for terrorist operations. An attack could cause major explosions, putting population centers at risk, as well as ejecting dangerous radioactive material into the atmosphere and surrounding region. Nuclear research facilities, uranium enrichment plants, and uranium mines are also potentially at risk for attacks that could cause widespread contamination with radioactive material (9).

4. Accidents In addition to the risks posed by terrorist attacks, human error and natural disasters can lead to dangerous and costly accidents. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine led to the deaths of 30 employees in the initial explosion and has has had a variety of negative health effects on thousands across Russia and Eastern Europe. A massive tsunami bypassed the safety mechanisms of several power plants in 2011, causing three nuclear meltdowns at a power plant in Fukushima, Japan, resulting in the release of radioactive materials into the surrounding area. In both disasters, hundreds of thousands were relocated, millions of dollars spent, and the radiation-related deaths are being evaluated to this day. Cancer rates among populations living in proximity to Chernobyl and Fukushima, especially among children, rose significantly in the years after the accidents (4)(5).

5. Cancer risk In addition to the significant risk of cancer associated with fallout from nuclear disasters, studies also show increased risk for those who reside near a nuclear power plant, especially for childhood cancers such as leukemia (6)(7)(8). Workers in the nuclear industry are also exposed to higher than normal levels of radiation, and as a result are at a higher risk of death from cancer (10).

6. Energy production The 444 nuclear power plants currently in existence provide about 11% of the world’s energy (11). Studies show that in order to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would have to scale up to around 14,500 plants. Uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to get to to. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore. The same is true for any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions brought about by switching from coal to nuclear (12).

7. Not enough sites Scaling up to 14,500 nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. The increase in extreme weather events predicted by climate models only compounds this risk.

8. Cost Unlike renewables, which are now the cheapest energy sources, nuclear costs are on the rise, and many plants are being shut down or in danger of being shut down for economic reasons. Initial capital costs, fuel, and maintenance costs are much higher for nuclear plants than wind and solar, and nuclear projects tend to suffer cost overruns and construction delays. The price of renewable energy has fallen significantly over the past decade, and it projected to continue to fall (14).

9. Competition with renewables Investment in nuclear plants, security, mining infrastructure, etc. draws funding away from investment in cleaner sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Financing for renewable energy is already scarce, and increasing nuclear capacity will only add to the competition for funding.

10. Energy dependence of poor countries Going down the nuclear route would mean that poor countries, that don't have the financial resources to invest in and develop nuclear power, would become reliant on rich, technologically advanced nations. Alternatively, poor nations without experience in the building and maintaining of nuclear plants may decide to build them anyway. Countries with a history of nuclear power use have learned the importance of regulation, oversight, and investment in safety when it comes to nuclear. Dr. Peter Bradford of Vermont Law, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, writes, "A world more reliant on nuclear power would involve many plants in countries that have little experience with nuclear energy, no regulatory background in the field and some questionable records on quality control, safety and corruption." (15). The U.S. should lead by example and encourage poor countries to invest in safe energy technology.

https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-cleaner-clo...