Yes George, Nuclear is too Expensive

Yesterday Ontario Liberal Energy Minister George Smitherman announced that Ontario will not be proceeding with building new nuclear reactors, for the time being, due to the enormity of the quotes. In other words, they're too expensive! He is waiting for the price to come down before making any commitment.

I've got a few comments about this (which, of course, is why I'm blogging):

1. Two of the bidding companies would not make any commitment whatsoever regarding cost overruns, and while the 3rd, AECL did include this in their bid, the resulting bid was 'billions' more than the province wants to spend. Smitherman commented that he wants to see what results from the sale of AECL before further talks with them. Does he believe that the quote will go down if he waits? Usually these kinds of things go up in price as time goes by. And, if the quote does go down, what will be sacrificed in order to ensure a lower price? Safety? Efficiency? This has me deeply concerned
2. It takes around 10 years to build a reactor. In the meantime, we will need to continue relying on coal as a source of electricity. Ever heard of climate change? We need to shut down our coal power plants as soon as possible. The only way we can do that is to replace it. The most efficient way to replace coal power is with renewable energy, which this country has in abundance. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal are all available to us, and do not contribute to climate change.
3. Nuclear, on the other hand, is dirty; it poses serious health and safety risks and can lead to terrorist activity. India's first nuclear bomb was made out of spent fuel from a CANDU reactor. Do we really want to continue producing nuclear waste?
4. Has Smitherman forgotten his own commitment to clean air in Ontario? Uranium mining is far from clean. Transporting this material is not clean. Storing it is not clean. Building nuclear reactors is not clean. Actions need to match words - nuclear is not clean.

It's time for Mr Smitherman to realize that the nuclear price tag is too high.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/onatario-nuclear.html

Durham Regional Councillors Approve Incinerator

Why would Durham regional councillors approve this incinerator?

Don't they listen to their constituents? Nearly 60 area residents delegated against burning 140,000 tonnes of residential waste, but the councillors approved it anyway.

The price tag for this 'project' has gone from $236 M to $272.5 M in the span of merely 2 months. Does anyone believe that this will come in on budget?

How many other initiatives could this council have been considering that would have actually improved the lives of residents, instead of making this dreadful decision.

Shouldn't zero waste be the goal? Surely burning garbage cannot be good for the air or water in the area.

The one ray of hope is that the provincial government has a say in the outcome. McGuinty and Smitherman say that the want a Clean Air future for Ontario. But then these 2 guys also support nuclear, so I wonder if they know what clean, safe, cost-efficient, renewable energy really looks like...

For all our sakes, I hope they do.

Water Treaty Renegotiations

I read an interesting article yesterday afternoon - apparently, according to US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the US is interested in renegotiating the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Interesting, considering that the rest of the article was about border security and the 100 year old Boundary Waters Treaty.

Interesting too were Ms Clinton's remarks that "The rivers, the lakes, the streams, the watersheds along our boundary do not belong to one nation, they belong to all of us", as she attended celebrations overlooking the falls.

It has often been asserted that the conflicts of the 21st century will be over water, not oil. This is because scientists and politicians know that as much as we rely on oil, there are other forms of energy available to us. However we ALL need water in order to survive; there is no substitute.

Safeguarding our fresh water supply is essential. Canada must ensure that we, and our neighbours, continue in our efforts to keep our fresh water clean and free from contaminents. We must stop selling our water - especially to companies that seek to benefit financially from its sale, while causing harm to ecosystems and generating pollution.

If we are entering negotiations with the US, this is the time for Canada to assert ourselves and stand up to protect the water that we all need in order to survive.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/13/boundary-waters.html

Asbestos

All of the hoopla surrounding Lisa Raitt seems to have overshadowed some very serious news items. One of these is the latest story on asbestos.

It may come as a surprise to many of you to know that Canada is still mining and exporting asbestos to developing countries like India and China. In fact, Canada is the world's second largest exporter of asbestos. How is this possible? Do we not recognize that their lives are sacred too, regardless of where they live?

The Conservatives argue that the type of asbestos being mined/exported (chrysotile) is not as hazardous as the type (amphibole) that was used here in Canada in the 60's and 70's. The Canadian Cancer Society disagrees.

The World Health Organization (WHO) says that ALL types of asbestos are carcinogenic. Many developed countries have banned asbestos - but not Canada.

Is it possible that we continue to mine/export a known carcinogen, against the advice of the WHO, simply because it is profitable?

When will Canadian governments realize that 'profit' does not always equate with 'good'. In fact, one could argue that these 'profits' are most likely being spent on medical treatment for those unfortunate Canadian men and women who are battling mesothelioma or asbestosis because they work with asbestos. It's what they call a vicious circle...

http://twitter.com/amycollard

Apology?

Keeping up with the media surrounding Lisa Raitt's gaffes is pretty much a fulltime job these days.

Lisa Raitt recently made extremely insensitive remarks about cancer, referring to the medical isotope shortage as 'sexy' and relishing the possibility of furthering her political career by 'rolling the dice' and 'getting all the credit'. She didn't realize that she was being taped at the time, which leads me to believe that her remarks show her true character.

This tape has been making headlines and top news stories all week. When asked about it during Question Period, Raitt went on the offensive showing no sign of remorse or humility.

Three days into this 'scandal' Canadians get to hear her tearful apology.

I wonder just how sincere this apology really was. It was scripted; not spontaneous. It was contrived to make us sympathize with Ms Raitt by including her own personal cancer stories. Quite the contrary; knowing that she has lost loved ones to cancer, makes me question how she could equate the isotope shortage with career advancement. What kind of person so easily forgets the people who are suffering with cancer, and thinks only of how to use that situation to their own advantage?

And today we discover that there is even more damaging information. On the tape Ms Raitt contends that Jim Prentice (Conservative Environment Minister) redirected money that was intended for Wind Energy and instead spent it on Tar Sands research and development.

When will the revelations end? There are over 5 hours of tape and we have only heard a few minutes...

So far Ms Raitt has apologized to Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq for comments questioning her ability to handle 'hot' issues, and to Canadians for using the word 'sexy' in reference to the isotope shortage. Will we be hearing of yet another apology to Environment Minister Jim Prentice? Or is it Mr Prentice's turn to apologize to Canadians?

Medical Isotopes

Never in my life have I heard anyone refer to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer as "sexy" - until last night, that is. Our Conservative Natural Resources Minister, Lisa Raitt, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, said "But it’s sexy. Radioactive leaks. Cancer."

Raitt, also stated that "You know what? Good. Because when we win on this, we get all the credit. I’m ready to roll the dice on this. This is an easy one. You know what solves this problem? Money. And if it’s just about money, we’ll figure it out. It’s not a moral issue."

Is the health and wellbeing of Canadians not "a moral issue"? How can this be? Chalk River usually produces 1/3rd of the world's medical isotopes, which are used to diagnose and treat cancer. How is this not both a moral and an ethical issue?

This is not "just about money"! This is about lives - the lives of Canadians and many other people around the world.

The shortage of these vital medical isotopes should not be used as a political poker chip.

Secrecy

You've likely heard the news - Conservative MP Lisa Raitt left documents marked 'Secret' at the CTV last week. The media are concentrating on the fact that these documents were not properly handled by Ms Raitt, which is true, however I believe they have missed the bigger issue.

My primary concern is that these documents were marked 'Secret'. Since when is government spending a secret? Canadian taxpayers have a right to know how much of their money the Conservative Government is spending to prop up the Nuclear industry. This should not be a secret.

The fact that the Conservatives felt that this information was secret, demonstrates a lack of respect for Canadians. Transparency in government is essential; if AECL spending is a secret, then what other secrets are they keeping?