Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts

9.15.2009

Medical Isotopes


This came to our attention too late to be included in the listings for our Sept. 10 issue, but Sept. 23 at 7:30 p.m. at the Unitarian Centre (College Ave. & Angus St.) Dr. Dale Dewar, a board member of Physicians for Global Survival, will give a talk entitled Medical Isotopes--Are We Being Given All the Facts? The talk is sponsored by Clean Green Regina.

9.11.2009

Energy Rethink?

Received a press release from the Committees Branch of the Saskatchewan Legislature yesterday announcing that an all-party committee (official title: the Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies) will be conducting, and I quote, "an inquiry to determine how the province can best meet the growing demand for electricity in a manner that is safe, reliable, environmentally-sustainable and affordable for Saskatchewan residents." To that end, hearings are scheduled to be held in Regina Oct. 6-8 and Oct. 16 and 19; in Saskatoon Oct. 9, 13 and 14; and in LaRonge Oct. 15.

In a news release of its own, the NDP opposition criticized the government for the tight timeframe. "This is a process designed to deal with an extremely significant issue--the future of our energy needs in Saskatchewan--and it is very unfortunate that the Wall government has no interest in taking it seriously," says NDP MLA Trent Witherspoon.

Is the all-party committee just a whitewash to deflect criticism of the biased and deeply flawed Uranium Development Partnership process, or is it a legit attempt by the government to address concerns that were raised during public consultations into the UDP report, and which Dan Perrins will surely have noted in his report that is due to be submitted, last I heard anyway, on Sept. 14? Time will tell, I guess.

For more info, check the committee website at:
www.legassembly.sk.ca/committees/CrownCentralAgencies/crown_central_agenciesnew.htm

6.23.2009

Dogged Determination


With all the stray dogs wandering around the pages of the June 18 issue, here's something else that got lost in the shuffle. It's a news brief I wrote that didn't get run, and considering the fast one Wall & Co. seem to be intent on pulling with the UDP report and the public consultations currently underway it deserves airing. Dan Perrins isn't supposed to submit his report until the end of August, yet the Globe & Mail story cited in two posts yesterday on Wall floating the idea of building a nuclear reactor in Saskatoon states that a decision could come as soon as August. Assuming the government is actually interested in reading the report, those timelines don't exactly match up. Yet when it comes to the ability of Saskatchewan citizens to proactively protect the environment, as the below report demonstrates, we don't have a lot of leverage.


Saskatchewan Receives Failing Grade
Environmental report cards are nothing new. Green activists have been releasing them for years as a way of evaluating the sensitivity of different jurisdictions, from provinces in Canada to countries around the world, to environmental issues.

On the eve of World Environment Day on June 5, Friends of the Earth Canada released its first annual report card on environmental rights available in law to Canadians (see http://www.foecanada.org/ ).

Ten criteria were examined, including the ability of individuals and organizations to initiate investigations and law suits related to suspected environmental misconduct, whistleblower protection for people who reveal instances of misconduct, measures to compel governments to respond to complaints, and so-called SLAPP protection which would prevent polluters from launching strategic lawsuits to dissuade individuals and groups from bringing forward their concerns.

Of the 13 jurisdictions examined, Yukon received the highest grade (B+). Ontario (B), Canada (C+) and Quebec (C+) also received passing grades. Every other jurisdiction was assigned a failing grade, with Saskatchewan, Alberta and Prince Edward Island all receiving Ds.

“What actions individuals and groups can take is largely dependent on what the government allows for in legislation,” says report author Jody Lownds. “We also need to keep in mind that our report doesn’t factor in any implementation gaps between what people can do in theory and how government processes actually work. Typically, there’s big gaps between what governments are supposed to be doing to allow their citizens to get involved and what’s actually happening on the ground.”

When it comes to environmental stewardship, says Lowds, traditional notions of property rights and legal standing are inadequate to address the dynamic nature of our eco-system. “In Alberta, for example, there’s an Environmental Appeal Board, where people who aren’t necessarily directly involved in a permit or environmental assessment can appeal a decision. But the test for standing is so strict that it’s not enough to simply be someone who’s concerned about the quality of your water and air. Unless your property interests are involved, you’re usually not able to [participate].

“One of the outcomes of this report, we hope, is that individuals and groups will start to lobby governments for better environmental rights,” says Lownds. “At the federal level, Friends of the Earth, along with Eco-Justice and Sierra Club of Canada, did put forward a draft Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. Given the current political climate, though, it’s been difficult to make any headway.”

6.22.2009

Wall Wants Istotopes!

Here's a link to a Globe And Mail article about Premier Brad Wall's newly-announced plans for nuclear in this province: in short, Brad Wall says Saskatchewan should build a research reactor at the U of S.

Well maybe we should, and maybe we shouldn't. But hats off to Dog Blog commentor Jurist, who predicted Wall would leverage Canada's need for medical isotope production to build support for a full-scale nuclear reactor. Wall is not a stupid politician.

Anyway, the Opposition takes a swat at this development on their website. In a press release, NDP MLA Sandra Morin asks: “How is it that the premier of a province can announce that he plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a nuclear reactor in two to three years in downtown Saskatoon without public consultation, without a plan and without a firm dollar figure[?]”

Well, good question.

Meanwhile, the other nuclear plant--the one Bruce Power wants to build--isn't for medical isotopes, of course. It's for power generation. And its opponents hate it. They say will be 1.) a cash sinkhole 2.) an environmental nightmare 3.) a distraction from sustainable energy options like wind, solar and conservation 4.) a power source for awful, pollutey oilsands extraction 5.) backdoor privatization of Saskatchewan's power grid and 6.) a strategy to transfer a ginormous pile of money to Bruce Power.

Beatty was at stakeholder consultations this a.m. and will report back when he has a chance. There will be some analysis in the next issue of prairie dog (July 2), as well.

Incidentally, the Globe and Mail story also reports Brad Wall ran on an election pledge to build up the province's nuclear industry. Here's their quote:

"Mr. Wall ran on a platform that included a pledge to build up a full-fledged nuclear industry in Saskatchewan, which already produces nearly a quarter of the world's uranium, but does little beyond extract the ore."

I don't remember this pledge, though it's possible Wall said something vague about getting more money from uranium (sarcsm: which I guess is why the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) wants to lower royalty rates, eh?).

But I am pretty damn sure Wall didn't promise that his government would build two nuclear reactors.

The Globe and Mail really needs to get someone out to these UDP meetings. They have no idea what the opposition to nuclear is saying. Either that, or they have no interest.