next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
1. Jan Slakov: MOX (nuclear reactor fuel) 2. Peter Davison: petition for a national referendum on forcing Stockwell Day to change his name to "Doris" 3. John Pearce: transportation policy of several federal Parties ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: jslakov@TartanNET.ns.ca (Jan Slakov) Dear Sust-Mar list, Climate Change Caucus and others, I've never met Gordon Edwards but I greatly admire his work. Canada's support for the nuclear industry is truly scandalous. (We SPEND huge amounts of money promoting a technology that is unsalable in democratic countries. So we end up selling to corrupt dictators and sometimes even bribes have been involved.) all the best, Jan ********************************************** Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 00:19:23 -0800 To: earth@islandnet.com From: Gordon Edwards <ccnr@web.net> (by way of Rycroft & Pringle <rycroft@islandnet.com>) Subject: Earth/Peace.ca-- Info on the MOX project Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:24:16 -0500 From: Gordon Edwards <ccnr@web.net> Organization: CCNR/RSN Hello Joan Russow. [Leader of the Green Party of Canada] Best of luck in your election campaign efforts. I was tonight telephoned by two of the Green candidates in Quebec, both of whom were referred to me by Judy Berlyn: Lorraine Craig in Verdun, and Eric Squire. They told me you are coming to Quebec and that you are also looking for info on the MOX project. The Chretien government has made a policy decision to promote the selling of CANDU reactors abroad as a way for Canada to meet its international commitments re greenhouse warming. In other words, Canadaand a few other nuclear bullies are going to international meetings on greenhouse warming and lobbying very hard for nuclear power. They want to be able to avoid their own domestic commitment to cutting green-house gas emissions by taking credit for nuclear reactors sold overseas reducing hypothetical greenhouse gas emissions in other countries that would have occurred had they not gone nuclear. This is an act of political piracy as well as environmental irresponsibility, for at no time has the Liberal party sought or got any kind of political mandate to promote nuclear power. They are looting the treasury to the tune of billion of dollars per shot to finance overseas sales of CANDU reactors, while trampling on Canada's own Environmental Assessment Act in the process, thus robbing Canadians of their political rights in two different ways at once. Meanwhile, there is no reasonable likelihood that many of our client countries have the financial or technical resources to maintain these reactors in safe operating condition -- even Ontario Hydro, with all its expertise and access to capital, has been unable to do so. Think of Canada's nuclear clients of the past -- India, Pakistan, Argentina, Taiwan, Romania, Korea -- and of the present and future -- China, Turkey?, Russia?, Indonesia?, Egypt ? -- and ask yourself, what are they going to do when their aging CANDU reactors start falling apart? And how are they going to safely manage the high-level radioactive waste? And the decommissioning problems? AECL has estimated the cost of a geologic repository to be about $17 billion (probably much more!) -- and even that concept has not been found to be environmentally acceptable to Canadians. Are our client countries going to succeed where we have failed? Or are we going to be importing all this nuclear garbage back to Canada for a fee? Whose grandchildren are going to curse us more, ours or theirs? Here at home, government policy continues to promote the plundering of Canada's uranium reserves at dirt-cheap prices by international corporations strongly linked to the nuclear weapons business. Canadians are thus inheriting more than 200 million tons of dangerously radioactive uranium mining wastes which will remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, so that a handful of companies can transfer Canada's uranium holdings out of the country for next to nothing. And let us not forget that uranium is still the raw material from which all nuclear weapons are made -- either directly, through enrichment, or indirectly, through conversion into plutonium. The hypocrisy surrounding Canada's anti-democratic efforts to import tons of weapons plutonium from Russia and the US in the guise of reactor fuel (MOX) is so thick you could cut it with a knife. First of all, the Chretien cabinet says they want to help the world get rid of plutonium. Nothing could be further from the truth. So-called "civilian" stockpiles of plutonium are already larger than the military stockpiles, and are growing much faster. All of this "civilian" plutonium can be used for nuclear weapons if desired -- the designation is largely arbitrary. Yet Canada explicitly permits client countries who purchase Saskatchewan uranium to convert it into plutonium in nuclear reactors, to have that plutonium separated from the rest of the radioactive garbage and to have it stockpiled as separated plutonium for future use. Because of Canada's bilateral "nuclear cooperation agreements", Canada must give explicit permission for this plutonium stockpiling to continue, which permission Canada provides unhesitatingly. If Canada were truly concerned about the dangers of stockpiled plutonium, it would have a coherent policy against ALL stockpiled plutonium. Instead, it is using the Russian military stockpile of 50 tons of excess weapons plutonium (out of a total of 1300 tons of seperated plutonium world-wide) as an excuse and an opportunity to demonstrate the CANDU reactor's ability to run on a full core of plutonium-based fuel; this will be used in several ways (1) it will help to promote CANDU reactors overseas as a flexible energy source that can switch from uranium fuel to plutonium fuel at any future time, thus catering to client countries' military ambitions as well as their desire for long-term energy self-security; (2) it will help the moribund nuclear power industries in Canada, Russia, and the US, to keep geriatric reactors operating domestically for the next quarter of a century, which is how long it will take to run through the 50 tons of Russian and the 50 tons of American excess weapons plute; (3) it will pave the way for ultimate acceptance of Canada importing a variety of nuclear wastes, including high-level nuclear waste, from other countries as a way of "solving" overseas problems of radioactive legacies by saddling Canadians with those problems in perpetuity; (4) it will give Canada an even greater sense of self-importance in the international nuclear community, which already regards Canada as a model of how to anaesthetize its population and carry out unpopular nuclear policies by simply never bringing them to public attention in any official way, or at least not in any official way that has any teeth to arrest or reverse those policies. Meanwhile, more than half of the plutonium used to fuel CANDU reactors will remain in the spent fuel, and will remain weapons-usable for countless millennia into the future, thus becoming a security burden as well as a toxic burden for our great grandchildren. Meanwhile, by the time a quarter century has elapsed, the amount of stockpiled plutonium in the world will be much larger than it is today, because so-called civilian production has far outstrippedthe ostensibly military production, and Canada will have helped to put the infrastructure in place to allow for the continual recycling of plutonium (the plutonium economy) that has been the dream of nuclear technologists since the dawn of the nuclear age. I agree with my colleagues that this dream is pie-in-the-sky fantasy which is in fact unrealizable, but nevertheless, enormous damage can be done along the way both in terms of world peace (spreading the bomb), unsustainable energy policies, emasculated environmental policies, and enormous additions to the national debt of numerous countries. For all these reasons, Canadians must begin to speak out loud and clear for a policy of phasing out nuclear power and uranium mining in Canada. This of course requires ending all governmental subsidies that are aimed in any way at perpetuating and/or expanding the nuclear industry. It also involves Canada playing a leadership role internationally in calling for the outlawing of plutonium production and use worldwide as a necessary pre-requisite for a world without nuclear weapons, as Trudeau noted back in 1978 in his "strategy of suffocation" speech to the UN Special Session on Disarmament. I'm tired and I wanna go to bed. I tried to pass on some specifically Quebec-oriented nuclear issues to your colleague Eric Squire. Check out our web site at http://www.ccnr.org as well as that of the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout at http://www.cnp.ca. Good luck in your campaign. Best wishes, Gordon Edwards. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Peter Davison <PDavison@chebucto.ns.ca> Subject: Too funny Petition Vote from This Hour has 22 minutes I don't often circulate mass emails but this is to funny and a delightful way to exercise the franchise. Peter Dear Fellow Canadians: One of the recently leaked once-hidden agenda items in the Canadian Alliance Party platform is the holding of referendums on any issue. Apparently, when 350 000 people sign a petition, there can be a referendum. So, let's not even wait for the Alliance to take office. If you want to see Stockwell Day forced to change his first name to Doris, then go sign this petition: http://www.22minutes.com This is really important. I think. Exercise your rights as a Canadian! PS Forward this on to all your friends! ;) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: johnkaren pearce <jk.pearce@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Environment & Transport Election Policy -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Paul's note: Ironically, they didn't ask the Green Party of Canada! Environmentalists lobby political parties to take strong positions on the environment. When one finally does, they ignore that Party. You don't have to: http://green.ca for Green Party platform. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- The following is from Dr. John Bakker, retired professor of engineering and transportation at U. of Alberta. (address at conclusion) John Pearce, Transport 2000 Atlantic 902-469-3474 The following analysis was made after examining the various party websites. Sources for Election Platforms: Liberals: www.liberal.ca and Redbook III downloaded in Word Format; Canadian Alliance: www.canadianalliance.ca; NDP: www.ndp.ca; PCParty: www.pcparty.ca The Bloc Quebecois does not run candidates in Western Canada, so I did not analize their website. VIARail Alliance Party - would eliminate subsidy (because it does not serve much of the country)and privatize VIA Liberal Party - continue operating subsidy of $ 170 million per year plus an investment of $ 402 million over 5 years for new equipment and infrastructure. VIA is looking into commercialization options for some VIA operations. NDP - It does not mention VIA in its platform. The NDP does mention commuter rail and transit as part of a national transportation strategy. PC Party - It does not mention VIA in its platform [Comment: The Liberals tried to privatize VIA, but found that the proposals received would require a greater subsidy then is now being paid. The UK found that franchising doubled the subsidy, the increase was translated into dividends for the private companies. The UK has given up hope that subsidies in total can be reduced, because of additional investments needed in infrastructure. The proposal by the Alliance Party would mean the elimination of VIA. None of the parties addresses the fundamental problem of public roads financed from taxes used by trucks and buses and private infrastructure of the railways paid for by the railways. Also railways pay tax on infrastructure, while roads do not. The depreciation rates of railways are different compared to other modes. In other words there is no level competitive playing field.] Fuel Taxes and Sulphur in Fuel Alliance Party - will eliminate "tax on tax" by cutting the GST on top of other federal and provincial fuel taxes, and will eliminate the "temporary" 1.5 cent increase in federal excise tax ( savings of at least 3 cents per litre ) The Alliance will also cut the federal excise tax on diesel fuel by 50% to help Canadians, including farmers and truckers, cope with high fuel costs. No mention of sulphur content in gasoline. Liberal Party - will give relief through tax credits to low income earners and otherwise not interfere in the market. The liberals will insist that the oil-refining industry cut sulphur in gasoline by more than 90% in the next five years. PC Party - would remove the GST on home heating fuels for a period of one year and would immediately suspend, for one year, the 1.5 cents/litre surtax on gasoline. The PC Party would encourage drivers to purchase low sulphur fuels by reducing the federal excise tax by four cents per litre on those fuels for a two-year period and it would remove the GST on home heating fuels for a period of one year. NDP - No or lower taxes for low income Canadians, otherwise no position. Put mandatory limits on sulphur content in gasoline. [Comment: See pages 4 and 5 of Western Newsletter November 2000] City Transit Alliance Party - Subject not mentioned Liberal Party - will work with provincial and municipal partners to help improve public transit infrastrucure. PC Party - Subject not mentioned NDP - will invest as partners in integrated, co-ordinated and affordable public transit and commuter rail service in and around our major urban centres. Highway Infrastructure Alliance Party - wants modern infrastructure: open skies, open roads, open seas. One area where government investment can genuinely help economic growth is infrastructure investment. To compete internationally, Canada needs a modern integrated network of road, rail, air, and marine transportation. We need to rebuild Canada's crumbling highway system, and especially develop trade corridors linking Canada with our NAFTA partners, the United States and Mexico. Liberal Party - will invest $600 million to improve provincial highways in first 5 years. PC Party - A Progressive Conservative government would establish a National Highway Policy in partnership with the provinces to ensure the long-term viability of our national highways. NDP - says good roads and accessible transit are essential to strong, healthy communities. [Comment: None of the parties address the issue of who should pay for infrastructure or alternate forms of transport that would relieve the highway system. Roads are assumed to be free and should be provided from taxes. All the parties see transport in one mode or another and fail to see that the heavy subsidies to highways have an impact on more efficient forms of transport. The relationship between emissions and trucks or the urban car is not seen in relation to less polluting forms of transport like trains or buses. That does not mean that there are safety cases for highway improvements]. Airline Merger Alliance Party - promotes choice and competition in Canada's airline industry. The Canadian Alliance does not believe that a regulated monopoly is in the interests of Canadian business or consumers. The Alliance would negotiate a liberalized Air Services Agreement with the United States and other countries to increase foreign competition on Canadian routes. Liberal Party - No position other then watch and see, regulate if necessary. PC Party - would broaden and enhance the Airport Capital Assistance Program (ACAP) to ensure community airports are sustainable. NDP - No position [Comment: Like in the bus industry profitable routes support remote routes. Competition on the profitable routes will make travel prohibitively expensive on remote routes. Party leaders and the elite no doubt only travel on the main routes.] Municipal Infrastructure Alliance Party - Subject is not mentioned Liberal Party - will invest $2 billion in new money to improve municipal infrastructure - bringing the total investment in municipal infrastructure to more than $14 billion in 10 years. PC Party - would ensure investment is channelled into green municipal infrastructure to ensure safe drinking water and more effective wate management systems. NDP - want to set up a Clean Water Fund to upgrade municipal water and wastewater treatment plants to improve water quality, water conservation and effluent management. [Comment: The PC Party does not say where the investment comes from.] Climate Change and Environment Alliance Party - would rely on community-based stewardship programmes and stakeholder consensus. Where incentives or voluntary measures are inadequate, it supports the regulation of critical habitat with fair market-value compensation. The Alliance will encourage business and industry to develop conservation solutions and will recognize those who deliver improvements in environmentally efficient production. The Alliance will work with the provinces in setting national standards and negotiating international agreements. Liberal Party - would promote increased energy efficiency in industry and the transportation system. It will invest $135 million in programs that help other countries reduce pollution affecting Canada by committing nearly $1.1 billion in programs that develop innovative technologies and fight global climate change. It will invest in the development of new energy technology, such as fuel cells, and help farmers to reduce agricultural emissions through improved farming methods. It will increase Canada's use of renewable energy such as electricity from wind and ethanol from biomass. It will encourage consumers to buy more energy efficient products by providing information and setting high product standards. P.C. Party - would introduce a Safe Air Act legislating acceptable air quality standards for Canadians that would be harmonized with the provinces and territories. It would achieve sector-by-sector agreements with industry to set targets to reduce emissions of various types of pollutants. The agreements would be negotiated and binding. NDP - would assert a strong federal prescence in both environmental monitoring and regulatory enforcement. It would develop a national water strategy, including national safe water standards and a ban on bulk water exports. It would give environmental protection precedence over trade agreements in trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes and dangerous goods. [Comment: Actually the various policies are rich on motherhood statements and poor on specific solutions] Grain Transportation Alliance Party - will make the grain transportation system more efficient and cost-effective by introducing commercial accountability. Liberal Party - will make Canada's grain-handling system more competitive and accountable. P.C. Party - would open up the Canadian Rail System to competition by and between all competent railway operators to create a more competitive and efficient rail transportation system that will benefit Canadian farmers. It would support the development of a commercial and contractual grain handling system. NDP - This subject is not mentioned. [Comment: The railways have either closed branch lines or converted branch lines into short lines. These short lines are entirely dependent on one of the two freight railways. What is needed as a minimum, that each shortline has running rights to reach the other freight railway, or the line to Churchill. The proposals of Alliance and the Liberals are not clear]] You may find these comparisons useful. John J. J. Bakker 4119 Reid Road, P.O. Box 247 Eagle Bay BC V0E 1T0 Phone: (250) 675-4779 Fax: (250) 675-4129 -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- The preceding message was posted on the Sustainable Maritimes mailing list (sust-mar). http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/lists/sust-mar -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Volunteer moderator: Paul Falvo mailto:sust-mar-owner@chebucto.ns.ca To submit a message to sust-mar, please send it to: mailto:sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca PLEASE SEND MESSAGES TO SUST-MAR IN PLAIN TEXT ONLY MESSAGES CONTAINING HTML (MIME) CANNOT BE POSTED
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects