That should be enough, but the pro-nukers are just not going away. Why should it be enough of a dismissal? Well, if Japan can’t be trusted to safely do nuclear, who the hell can?

Think about it: One of the most technologically advanced countries in the world had a nuclear disaster. If a serious accident like that could happen in Japan, it could happen anywhere. In fact, it already did.*

So why won’t the pro-nukers accept that nuclear power is dangerous and we can’t handle it safely? This seems to be a common progression in discussions with pro-nukers, or as I am coming to think of them, dumbasses:

ME: Because Fukushima, that’s why.

Pro-nuker: It was a perfect storm: an earthquake and a tsunami.

ME: Which you’re saying will never happen again, ever? In earthquake and tsunami-prone Japan? You know, the country that invented the word tsunami?

DA: The design of the reactor was inadequate. Newer models would not have these problems.

~Note the change of argument? DA couldn’t answer so abandoned that argument, though not the belief; he’ll continue to throw it out in future discussions. The problem is that DA holds to nuclear power like a Holy Grail, and he (almost always men) simply ignores contrary evidence.

ME: So you’re guaranteeing that these new designs will never have a dangerous radioactive release? Never, ever, ever? Ever?

DA: No, they can’t. Decent maintenance, proper siting – not close to the coast, for example, and Bob’s your uncle. Never a problem.

ME: Never.

DA: Well, statistically, of course, something could happen, but the possibility is remote.

ME: How remote?

DA: Not worth worrying about.

ME: I’m worried. What’s my risk.

DA: Infitesimal. It’s not even measurable.

ME: So, for example, Pakistan, which has nuclear power plants – let’s say Al-Qaeda launches a terrorist assault on one, packs it with fertilizer and blows it to smithereens, steals all the fuel and waste and runs off with it – there’s no risk to anyone from the nuclear part of that? I’m not saying count the people killed in the battle or the explosion, just people endangered from the nuclear material.

DA: Well, that’s a ridiculous scenario.

ME: Have you been following the news on Pakistan?

DA: Well, okay, it’s possible, but that’s in Pakistan and that has nothing to do with developed countries. Politically unstable countries shouldn’t have nuclear energy or weapons.

ME: But they do, dumbass, because people like you seem to think that nuclear energy is the bomb. So to speak.

DA: I don’t agree with selling nuclear technology to politically unstable countries.

ME: [sigh] You do realise that Pakistan was fairly stable when we sold them the nukes? Political situations change. Terrorists and wars happen. And you do agree that such a terrorist action, followed by what they could do now that they have all this extremely dangerous material – could potentially expose millions of people to dangerous, probably toxic levels of radiation?

DA: Look, it’s far-fetched, and it doesn’t really affect us.

ME: Al-Qaeda having radioactive material doesn’t potentially affect “us”?

DA: It’s too late now, anyway. There are plenty of stable countries that can use the new technology safely.

ME: And how long must those countries remain politically stable, free from the danger of terrorist attacks, and safe from wars? Doesn’t the waste remain radioactive for rather a long time? Like, longer than all of human civilization has been around so far?

DA: It’s safe if stored safely. Yucca mountain…

ME: So you can guarantee that all developed countries that have or will have nuclear power will remain politically stable, free of wars or serious internal problems, for the next 10,000+ years.

DA: Well, of course nobody can guarantee that. That’s a ridiculous requirement.

ME: Why?

Responses vary at this point, but most of them come down to either:

• I don’t want to think about that (there’s wilful ignorance kicking in to protect the belief system), or
• I don’t really care about the people who will live here in the future. It’s their problem – we told them it was radioactive. It’s their responsibility to keep the nation and its toxic waste secure, not our responsibility to not produce it in the first place.

And that latter argument, frankly, is pretty damn selfish and a damn poor justification.

So the next time some pro-nuker zealot tries to proselytize the infallible need for nuclear energy, tell him no, because you’re not thoughtful enough or not mature enough to be making those kinds of decisions. Or just say, “Because Fukushima, that’s why.”

***********************************

* Did you forget about Three Mile Island?

Still not convinced? Need more data? Nuclear delusions: Why nuclear power is not a solution to our energy challenge is an excellent, concise critique of nuclear power.

The world oil supply is running down and we have no ready substitutes.

Climate change is happening now – stronger storms, more devastating wildfires, rising sea levels, diseases spreading – the list goes on, and there is every indication that it will continue to worsen.

The US economy, upon which the world economy still depends, is unstable due to corruption at the top, from most Congressmen to presidential advisors all being former bank executives.

Our leaders are not moving quickly enough to protect the economy in general, never mind your or my livelihoods in particular. Some of our leaders are actually doing things to worsen the situation, such as denying the very existence of climate change or ignoring the ever-rising price of oil.

We are facing “interesting times.” The turbulence has begun, and it’s buffeting us from all directions. Have you ever had the experience of going for a walk and, no matter which direction you were going, the wind always seemed to be in your face? That’s what the future is going to feel like for many people.

I could (and have) proposed large-scale responses to the situation, which frankly at this point need to be a WWII-scale mobilization to re-industrialize and re-do our living arrangements to drastically cut oil dependence immediately and, long-term, eliminate pollution of all kinds by moving to a ‘restorative economy.’

But we’re not going to do that in the foreseeable future, are we? Or anything even remotely close. If you take your family’s security seriously, then you will do what you can to buffer yourself against the coming storms. The best way I have seen to do that is Transition Initiative, and you should seriously consider joining (or starting) one in your area.

TI is a completely grassroots, apolitical initiative, and this is what they do:

Transition Network helps communities deal with climate change and shrinking supplies of cheap energy (peak oil). This process, which we call Transition, aims to create stronger, happier communities.

That’s how we’re going to get through this; by working together in local communities. As the Transition Network site puts it well:

What we are convinced of is this:

• • if we wait for the governments, it’ll be too little, too late
  • if we act as individuals, it’ll be too little
  • but if we act as communities, it might just be enough, just in time.

Your level of involvement can be minimal or massive; the choice is yours. Here are some things that local TIs do:

• Teach people how to grow a garden, save seeds, preserve foods
• Educate people by showing documentaries about peak oil, climate change, solutions, and more
• Host online and IRL forums to discuss and learn
• Show people how to insulate their homes or build a solar greenhouse

Like it or not, the world is changing. You can adapt, or not.

With all due respect to Jean Chretien, he is a big part of the reason that many Canadians no longer trust the Liberal Party. It wasn’t just Adscam, during which Mr. Chretien was the:

Prime Minister of Canada at the time the Sponsorship Program was established and operated. The Gomery Commission, First Phase Report which assigned blame for the Sponsorship scandal cast most of the indemnity for misspent public funds, fraud on Chrétien and his Prime Minister’s Office staff, though it cleared Chrétien himself of direct wrongdoing.

That was bad enough. But for many of us, there is a long history of big talk and little action. To give three prime examples:

1. The Liberals campaigned against NAFTA – but then embraced it once elected
2. The Liberals campaigned against the GST – but then embraced it once elected
3. The Liberals signed Kyoto – but then did less than nothing to meet that commitment

Tell me again why we should trust Liberal promises?

For me, the Kyoto betrayal offers a particularly compelling reason to not vote for the Liberals. Had Mr. Chretien’s government redirected oil and tar mining subsidies to green energy – say solar thermal, wind, and geothermal – then today there would be thousands of clean and green jobs in these fields in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The prairies would be an ‘energy superpower,’ but in clean energy and high-tech jobs, the way Denmark and Germany are today.

Subsidies to tar mining amounted to approximately $1.5 billion taxpayer dollars per year in 2010. Multiply that by the number of years since Kyoto was signed in 1998 and you get a heck of a lot of money: $19.5B in today’s dollars. That’s also a lot of jobs:

• Siemens plans to build a CDN$ 120M wind turbine factory in the UK, anticipated to create ~2,200 jobs
• GE plans to build a CDN$ 160M wind turbine factory in the UK, anticipated to create more than 2,000 jobs
• The Pembina Institute estimates that “for every million dollars invested, an average 36.3 jobs are created in the energy efficiency sector, 12.2 jobs in the renewable energy sector, and only 7.3 jobs in the development of conventional energy.”

That was an opportunity squandered and an international commitment broken. Using the Pembina Institute’s figures, Jean Chretien’s Liberals could have put us on the path to creating 237,900 jobs in the prairies just from the subsidies alone.

The Liberals campaign from the left and govern from the right, and it looks like Canadians have finally had enough and are going to elect the real deal.

Regular readers will know that I ran for the Green Party of Canada in the last election, and you will also know that, despite that, I am independent. (The best description I’ve come up with for myself is a Green Independent Conservative: GIC.) I am not running in the current election.

So, like millions of other independently-minded Canadians, I must decide whom to trust with my vote. (I don’t think that rejecting my ballot is a mature or useful thing to do in this election; there is enough differentiation among the parties and platforms, and they’re not all so hopelessly corrupt that I would take this last resort.)

Who then? If you’ve been reading me, you’ll know I’m leaning strongly toward the NDP, not because I’m a raving socialist – and neither is the NDP – but because they seem most likely to move Canada in a more German/Nordic direction, and we need that. Some claim that we must slavishly follow the United States, but I reject this. Look at Norway as an example of a successful economy and society (you need both); it is right next to the Russian bear, but Norway is no Russian stooge. They have a strong and stable economy, and they have very successfully embraced the new green economy.

Germany has also done exceptionally well, and consider that the reunification imposed enormous costs on the country; essentially, everything built by the Soviet regime was crap in comparison to what had been accomplished under social democracy in the free half of Germany, and had to be scrapped and rebuilt.

I watched Peter Mansbridge interview Jack Layton, leader of the NDP, and Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservatives, and I have to say that Layton came out as the more mature, wiser leader. Harper came across as such a…politician. He had a couple of decent points, but on the whole was one slippery character. It didn’t seem to matter the question; Harper’s response was either “OMG! Coalition!” or “I must have a majority.” Every time Mansbridge would pursue a non-answer or a contradiction, well, it was like trying to catch a greased pig.

Layton, on the other hand, seemed like a reasonable guy, willing to – expecting to – work with others to govern the country. Harper comes across as a petulant boy, wanting it all his way or not at all.

But the economy!

Harper constantly fearmongers that anyone else will wreck the economy, but is that really true? He was pushed into a ‘stimulus’ after the recession hit by the other parties, which he then directed a disproportionate share to Conservative-held ridings; that’s porkbarrel politics, plain-and-simple, and it ain’t conservative.

But even worse, the Conservative stimulus was misdirected in a more fundamental way. The Harper Government™ absolutely refused to direct the stimulus in a way that moved the Canadian economy forward. It paid for people to repave their driveway or build a new deck, but is that really a productive use of taxpayer money? If you’re going to dole out the largesse, shouldn’t it at least be productive?

And here’s an important reason why I favour Layton: Had Layton and the NDP been running the government, they would also have done the stimulus, but without being forced by the other parties and with more sensible direction. The NDP would have looked at things like rebuilding our rail system, or perhaps invested in electric cars, or in wind and solar energy, or helped people insulate their houses so they would need less energy, thus saving money permanently.

Harper’s stimulus was not as wasteful as the Bush/Obama U.S. version, where people paid down credit cards or bought big screen TVs made in China, but really most of what it did was create temporary construction jobs. Layton’s NDP would also have spent money, but on things that move Canada toward the economy that is rapidly developing in Europe and China, and that we are equally rapidly falling behind.

On the whole, I’d rather taxpayer dollars be spent, if they must be, on productive, forward-looking projects, not simply make-work-vote-buying gimmicks.

Is the NDP perfect? Is any party? In politics you must choose among what is available, and I believe it is time to give the NDP a chance.

*************************

By the way, why not the Liberals? Let me sum it up like this: Jean Chretien signed the Kyoto Accord – then did utterly and absolutely nothing to make it real. Imagine if Chretien had redirected tar mining subsidies to wind and solar manufacturing and generation – as Germany and Norway and many other countries are doing? That would have created many thousands of secure, well-paying, clean manufacturing jobs in the Prairies. Chretien did not, and Ignatieff will not, either. Status quo, yo.

And why not the Greens? Simple pragmatism; they are not going to get elected (with the possible exception of Elizabeth May). It is not only our first-past-the-post system to blame, either; the reality is that other parties have arisen and captures seats under this system.