May. 06, 2009 - Issue #707: Designated Grey Wall
Issues
Another contentious issue, another phony consultation
Nuclear Consultations
Why bother? Does anyone in Alberta really believe that "consultations" and
"expert panel" reports generated by the provincial government are ever
anything more than attempts to whitewash contentious issues and unpopular
policies? Yet the government continues to spend millions of dollars on these
public relations exercises, and continues to try pass them off as genuine and
objective consultations.
The latest supposed information gathering and public consultation effort
launched by the government is no different. When Albertans responded loudly
and angrily to a proposal from Ontario's Bruce Power to build up to four
nuclear reactors in northern Alberta, the government sought to quell the
outcry by assuring us that they would not take a position on nuclear power
without first studying the pros and cons in depth and fully consulting the
public.
As always, the first step in this process was the appointment of an "expert
panel" to produce a "comprehensive and balanced" research report, which would
look at the environmental, safety and myriad other issues related to nuclear
power generation.
Unfortunately, the panel itself was neither comprehensive nor balanced. The
panel is chaired by Harvie Andre, a former Conservative MP who remains
closely allied with pro-nuclear Conservatives, including Stephen Harper. Also
on the panel is John Luxat, who is a past president of the Canadian Nuclear
Society, and a current board member of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
(AECL). Rounding out the panel are Joseph Doucet, an energy policy professor
from the University of Alberta, and Harrie Vredenburg, a prof from the
University of Calgary who has done work in the past for energy companies
holding a direct stake in Bruce Power.
Missing from the panel were any environmental researchers, any health
professionals and generally anyone who might be critical or provide a
different perspective to that being presented by the nuclear industry. In
fact, when Dr. Helen Caldicott, one of the world's leading researchers on the
health impacts of nuclear energy, was in Alberta recently she offered to meet
with Harvie Andre and the entire panel, but her offer was refused by panel
chair Andre.
The panel finally released its long-awaited report to the public at the end
of March. As was expected given the composition of the panel, the report was
also neither comprehensive nor balanced. This is even less surprising when
one considers that the organizations contracted to prepare the report were
the Idaho Nuclear Laboratory (INL), a researcher, builder and operator of
nuclear reactors, and the Alberta Research Council, which has signed a signed
memorandum of understanding with INL to explore uses of nuclear power in the
tar sands.
The panel's report heavily downplayed the environmental and health impacts of
nuclear energy, focusing instead on nuclear energy as a low-carbon-emission
source of electricity. To achieve that claim, the report ignores the full
life-cycle emissions of nuclear power, which includes mining and
transportation. There was no mention in the report of peer-reviewed studies
from Germany citing higher cancer rates in children living near nuclear
plants, nor was there mention of the issue of radioactive emissions from
reactors, including tritium. The risk assessment in the report was based on a
small 800 megawatt reactor, despite the fact that what is being proposed in
Alberta is up to 4000 megawatts of generation. The costs of nuclear
generation were also downplayed, focusing only on the direct costs of
generation and not including the full life-cycle costs of plants, including
construction and decommissioning. These are the costs that have Ontario
citizens still paying a premium on their monthly electricity bills to
subsidize their nuclear power plants, which have never actually run at
anywhere near 100 per cent of capacity.
The Pembina Institute recently released a report highlighting that all of
Alberta's future electricity needs could be met by renewable electricity
generation. Interestingly, the panel's report fails to consider this
research, and seems focused on the need for increasing non-renewable
capacity. Finally, the report focuses on existing reactors and completely
ignores the fact that the reactors proposed for Alberta have never been used
anywhere before and have had numerous problems in their development
phase.
In short, the panel's research report reads like a public relations document
for nuclear power that would make Mr. Burns of The Simpsons proud.
The government is now using this report as the foundation for its public
consultation exercise. The consultation consists of a workbook that can be
filled out either online or in print, and returned to the government. Because
it's based on the findings of the panel, however, the information and
questions in the workbook suffer from the same lack of information. The
leading nature of the questions is also problematic. Questions designed to
highlight Alberta's future energy needs, compare nuclear emissions to coal
emissions and reassure Albertans that radiation emissions would be within
international guidelines make it clear what the government hopes to get from
this survey.
The other aspect of the consultation is a by-invitation-only series of focus
groups to talk through these issues and gather opinions from Albertans. The
government claims to have selected this option instead of public town hall
meetings because the town hall process tends to bring out people with strong
opinions about the issue. Instead, the government wants to hear from
"average" Albertans.
Ultimately, it was clear from the initial appointment of the expert panel how
this process was going to end up. Another contentious issue, another phony
consultation, another case of the government doing what they want while
ignoring the wishes of Albertans.
Nuclear energy is an issue that demands public discussion, input and
dialogue. It is an issue that requires an understanding of all the risks and
implications. To tackle this issue by way of a glorified public relations
campaign and consultations with predetermined results is an insult to
Albertans, and does significant damage to the public interest. Let them know
you see through it. Let them know you demand real information and research.
And let them know that you are far too concerned with your health and
environment to let them slip this one through as they have with so many
others. V
Ricardo Acuña is executive director of the Parkland Institute, a non-partisan public policy research institute housed at the University of Alberta.
More stories in front »
New comments for this entry have been turned off and any existing ones are hidden. We apologize for any inconvenience.