The Shotgun Blog
« Flooding Bail-Outs | Main | Middle Class For A Change »
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Alberta Tories refuse to name nuclear lobbyists: NDP
The Alberta Tory government is withholding information from the public about its nuclear consultations, NDP MLA Rachel Notley said yesterday.
“The government refuses to name the stakeholder groups they met with behind closed doors,” Notley said. “They’re keeping it secret. We’ve followed procedures to access this information, and still they refuse to come clean.”
The NDP submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request on May 8 asking the identity of industry representatives – Notley prefers the term lobbyists – who attended private “discussion groups” about the development of nuclear energy in the province.
The request followed a government announcement in April that stakeholders and focus groups would be consulted about the issue.
In a response to the FOI request last month, the government committed to posting the information by the end of June. That hasn’t happened, according to Notley.
“All they’ve given us is the dates and locations of 10 focus groups that were held April with random Albertans,” Notley said.
“We know the government had private meetings with business and energy lobbyists. The public should be told who those groups were, what they wanted, and what Ed Stelmach’s government has promised them,” continued Notley.
There is considerable interest in nuclear power in the province to support the energy-intensive oil sands industry. Oil sands projects are a major consumer of natural gas and a major producer of global warming gases, making nuclear power an attractive option, especially with a reliably source of uranium in nearby Saskatchewan.
Notley has been working with the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Alberta, primarily Peace Country residents, to stop the development of nuclear power in Alberta.
“Thousands of Albertans are signing petitions against the development of nuclear power in Alberta. They’re saying loud and clear that they don’t want nuclear power plants in this province, and the Tories are ignoring them,” said Notley.”
(Picture: Rachel Notley)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on July 8, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
I support the development of nuclear power in Alberta, Strong Powerful. Sometimes I just post news items, however, with little commentary but with links to Western Standard stories that make the case for me.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-08 11:23:11 PM
Stumping for the NDP now, eh Matthew?
Posted by: Strong Powerful | 2009-07-08 11:15:14 PM
I don't get that at all. If a group of concerned farmers were asking about this, would Matthew be "stumping for farmers" or reporting facts?
Some people see what they want to see I guess.
I'd like to see nuclear power in Alberta.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-09 5:07:53 AM
"Don't be coy, or disingenuous, that's what you're doing."
Here we go again ...
Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-09 5:40:43 AM
I support Nuclear Power generation also. The majority of US nuclear power is generated by a French owned company and, doing very well.
I see the US is giving nuclear plants extensions of 15-20 years before they have to shut down. That speaks well for the plants design.
In all, the US is going to be short 70 million megawatts (yes; a huge number) by 2020 due to plant shut downs.
This is a huge market for which Ontario and Quebec are moving towards as is Albert Saskatchewan and BC.
Obama has asked for 15% mix of "green" power in the export quota. Ontario and Quebec are all green. Alberta and Saskatchewan need nuclear to reach that quota!
We have the biggest wind farms outside of the US right here in Alberta and they still are not enough. BC is putting a billion dollars into geothermal heat to generate electricity.
We simply have to get on board to remain in the market place.
Posted by: cyberclark | 2009-07-09 8:25:07 AM
The majority of US nuclear power is generated by a French owned company and, doing very well.
Posted by: cyberclark | 2009-07-09 8:25:07 AM
No they don't. Exelon owned nuclear facilities produce about 17,000 MW. US nuclear plants produce about 100,000 MW in total.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-09 9:03:49 AM
This has nothing to do with whether or not you support nuclear power.
This is about the transparency of government in a democracy.
If you support nuclear power, you should be incensed that Ed Stupid would appear to have something to hide thereby discrediting nuclear power.
Stupid cannot do anything right.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-07-09 9:46:08 AM
Thanks to the Notelys of the world, decisions whether or not to employ nuclear power are in the hands of politicians. She is torqued-up because it isn't her behind closed doors acting omnipotent. If Alberta is not willing to fully utilize it's coal resources, nuclear power is the only serious alternative. Stelmach doesn't have the guts to take on the articles of faith of the Church of Watermelons. He's likely already in one of the pews, too conservative to be in the choir.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-07-09 9:48:07 AM
Speaking of Green theology, Matthew, why do you persist in repeating the same articles of faith: ..."Oil sands projects are a major consumer of natural gas and a major producer of global warming gases...". I assume you are referring to Carbon Dioxide which is an insignificant variable in a highly complex system (a small fraction of the GW effect of water vapour), a small fraction of which is man-released (about 5%). The Earth's climate is essentially a receptor and distributor of solar energy and the measurements of the variation of that input is the only variable that has significantly correlated to observed changes in global temperature to date.
If increased growth within the biosphere of all primary production species (photosynthetic life) is a measure of "green", then increased CO2 is beneficial and "green".
The science isn't settled, of course, and it never will be except when corrupted by politics and or theology.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-07-09 10:33:15 AM
So, nuclear power plants last 15 to 20 years. How long would it take for Alberta to be completely polluted with these old plants. Who is going to pay the price of maintaining the decomissioned plants for thousands of years to come, not to mention the waste. Who is going to insure property owners against nuclear accidents? History proves that these plants contaminate the water and surrounding area; regardless of the false promises put forward. Would this open the door for Alberta to once again be used as a garbage dump, just as the hazard waste plant did. To me, this whole thing stinks of dirty money. What happened to that new invention that takes a small amount of power and multiples it many times with no pollution? Does anyone know? If you like nuclear power Ed, why dont you move to Chernobyl. I won't miss you, the ranchers won't miss you, and we'll all be better off!
Posted by: Carol Fern | 2009-07-09 12:46:54 PM
Carol- The EUB regulates liability.
Environmental liability must be guaranteed, up front, before any big project is approved. It's a system Alberta put in place after the lessons learned from oilfield activity. It's why you don't see many farmers drilling their own gas well. They can't post a big enough bond to cover the worst case scenario.
It used to be fairly common to see small investment groups buying up used gas & oil fields. These groups would make pretty good money, until it came time to abandon the facilities. Many of these fields became "orphans", and had to be reclaimed by our tax dollars (and at the expense of contributing oil companies).
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-09 2:48:04 PM
Its all a bunch of BS!! It says you can not release private patient info and thats fair.
It does not say you cant say the govt is full of crap!!!
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-07-09 8:59:08 PM
Have those who don't want nuclear power kept up with the science? Judging by their rhetoric I suspect not.
Posted by: DML | 2009-07-09 10:39:36 PM
dp - There are not enough tax dollars to cover the pollution from nuclear plants; and, I'm sure that any corporation does not have sufficient funds either. A corporation would just 'close their doors' and there is nothing that the government could do. Community members could do nothing. The problem would be impossible to resolve, the pollution would be permanent and the ordinary citizen would again be the victim. Pollution from nuclear can't be 'cleaned up' and the health of the people can't be restored. The area would have to be abandoned if an accident or sabotage occurred. If one looks into uranium mining alone it is shocking. Great Bear Lake, the largest lake within Canada, is surrounded by uranium claims. The governments solution to water pollution is to pass regulations that say all water, including the 'dew on the grass' belongs to the government. That's a pretty good way to avoid liability isn't it? Do governments care about the health and well being of ordinary citizens? I don't think so!
Posted by: Carol Fern | 2009-07-10 10:49:55 AM
Doesn't surprise me that Matthew Johnston is posting NDP articles, given that he used to support them. Is he going back to his roots?
Posted by: Steve Taylor | 2009-08-03 12:09:38 PM
Post a comment