The pro-nuke view
The meeting started with a video from Sask Power outlining their projection of energy needs for the future. They expect demand to double in the next few years. Thus there are plans to spend $8 billion to replace aging coal fired plants and build additional supply facilities over the next ten years.

This was followed by a second video, a presentation by Dr. Richard Florizone, chair of the UDP and a nuclear physicist, which summarized the panel’s recommendations. The UDP report, which is available on their web site, is not a balanced assessment of energy needs and different options but is an advocacy brief for the nuclear industry.

The majority spoke out
The meeting then requested that someone who opposed the panel’s recommendations be allowed to reply. Ingrid Alesich of the Regina chapter of the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan summarized the case against nuclear power.

From 9 until 11:15 p.m. people took turns at the microphones giving their five minute response to the UDP report. The views expressed ranged from the technical aspects of nukes and alternative energy to general political statements.

Why are we exporting our highly toxic uranium and poisoning people and the environment around the world? Why does no one care that in Saskatchewan the people most impacted by the industry are Aboriginal people living in the North? Why should we export energy to Alberta to help them develop the tar sands which is currently the greatest environmental disaster in the world? Why can’t our elected government lead the way in finding ways to reduce energy consumption? These are among the many fundamental questions that were asked but have been consistently ignored by Saskatchewan governments over the years.

The role of Sask Power
Anyone who has done any research on energy supply and use knows that the cheapest and quickest way to deal with new energy demand is conservation. Many jurisdictions around the world are putting a first priority on retrofitting older buildings, demanding higher standards of energy conservation and efficiency in new homes and buildings, and introducing demand management systems. But not Sask Power. Not a mention of this first choice alternative in their video.

Sask Power has never supported a serious energy conservation program as this would reduce sales and income. For the same reason, it is not promoting net metering for households, businesses and communities, which would encourage individuals and towns to build their own alternative energy systems. I have seen this successfully operated in the United States, and it is a requirement for the development of wind and solar energy.

The move around the world is towards decentralization of energy production and use. It makes enormous sense in the era of climate change. But not in Saskatchewan. Sask Power rules, an entity outside the democratic control of the people it is supposed to serve.

The public consultation process is demonstrating that there is strong opposition to the plan to build nukes and expand the uranium industry in Saskatchewan. I am sure this will be central to the report by Dan Perrins. But does anyone think this will change the mind of the government?

There is one positive aspect to this completely flawed process represented by the Uranium Development Partnership. It reveals the profoundly anti-democratic nature of our present political system. And it has managed to get a bunch of people, particularly young people, back into the political arena.

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and long time environmental activist.

Comments

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!