Let's consider the implications to removing all coal, oil and natural gas fired generating stations in Ontario.  Removing 3.3 GigaWatts of electrical generation from Ontario would represent about 17.7% of total generating capability.  How would this be replaced, assuming no change to consumption?  There are no viable large hydroelectric sites, photovoltaic (PV) solar panels consume immense power for production, and wind turbines are almost as costly as PV cells.   And as we know in government – management costs will kill you if you have 100s of small projects so it's "go big or go home" when we're taking about the electrical grid.

Starting with the fuel of nuclear power, Uranium-238 (unsuitable for fuel) accounts for over 99% of all natural Uranium and has a half-life of 4,470 million years (higher the half-life, the less radioactive the material).  Uranium-235 (fuel and weapons grade) accounts for less than 1% and has a half-life of 704 million years.  In other words, natural uranium is weakly radioactive.  By comparison Carbon-14 – a natural source of radioactivity found in all living things – has a half-life of 5,730 years (0.005 million years).  C-14 is radiologically toxic in comparison to U-238 and U-235.  The dreaded Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years.

Let's look at the reactor used in Canada – the legendary CANDU.  I will not use the term "legendary" without qualification.  The CANadian Deuterium Uranium rectors were conceived, designed, developed, and constructed in Canada by the predecessor of Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) in the 1950s.  But since Canada was (is?) a peaceful nation, there were no Uranium enrichment facilities available the reactor design used unenriched Uranium.  Enrichment is there process which increases the concentration of U-235 from <1% to about 9% to reach criticality easier.  Without getting too into it, this is accomplished by the geometry of the reactor core and is the reason it takes days to start-up a CANDU.  Remember the blackout of 2003?   A safety side-effect of this is if the rector starts to overheat, the core will soften then deform and break the geometry thereby breaking criticality – the nuclear chain reaction will slow down and not run-away to a meltdown.  Put simply, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl wouldn't have happened if they used CANDU reactors.

Ok then, how much material is used in generating electricity using CANDU reactors?  One litre of Diesel fuel – like that used in oil fire generating stations – has an energy density of 45.47 MegaJoules per kilogram (or about 0.0126 MegaWatt-Hours per kilogram).  According to the IAEA and the World Nuclear Fuel Market more than 55.5 MegaWatt-Hours of electricity is generated in a CANDU for every kilogram of Uranium.  That's a 4,400-fold higher energy density than oil and enough to power a home for over 4.5 years.  Downside is the waste is just about the nastiest stuff imaginable.  But it can be refined and reacted a second and even a third time in a CANDU reactor.  Once it's totally spent, the waste is stowed away.  By contrast, combustion generation is released into the atmosphere and you know the CO2 story there.

Now what about the safety of combustion energy?  Let's look at the tar sands as an example of safety.  Here is a link to a satellite view of a settling pond where waste from the tar sand processing is left to separate.  Notice how there is only 400 meters separating it from the Athabasca River (a 1,200 km river, 9^th longest in Canada).  If we talk about nuclear waste accidents and meltdowns, let's talk about the cost of a spill from one of these ponds into the Athabasca River.   The cost would be incalculable.  Exxon Valdez spilled 41.6 million liters of oil across 760 kilometers of shoreline.  A break in the levee of a major settling pond in Fort McMurray would be on the same scale.

Uranium mining is nothing like working in a power plant.  Because of the relatively low concentrations of uranium in the ore pitchblende, most mines are open-pit and resemble a quarry.  The workers don't wear protective equipment because of the low radioactivity (high half-life).  In fact, it's adequate that they're inside the cabin of a dump truck.  The principle risk from Uranium mining isn't the uranium itself since it has such a low half-life; but a by-product of Uranium decay – the noble gas Radon with a half life measured in hours.  Though in vanishingly low concentrations, Radon is airborne and highly radioactive.  Uranium is not airborne (being 70% denser than lead) and not a risk to any surrounding population – at least no more dangerous than mining for any other mineral.

So there you have it – the details.  Now that it's served on a silver platter you can call shenanigans on someone who spews nonsense.   And as a bonus, be able to impress them by how much you know about "nuke-yeah-lerr" power.  And the best part is – you'll back it up with a strong bibliography so show that you aren't a nuclear industry lobbyist.  Because we all know there are 10's of 1000's of them out there, right?

  Jean-Luc Cooke's online persona is SmellsLikeFries - a source of cluons in the bogosity of online green howto's. Through his blog and YouTube videos, he tries to educate using his own real-life experience and factual analysis. In 2005 he converted his Diesel Jetta to run on waste cooking oil (not biodiesel as he professes in his blog). Since 2007 he's been helping a friend get off the grid with a 1930's design generator also using used cooking oil. In 2008 he finally got his zero emissions furnace (ground source heat pump) installed to complement the usual composting, gardening and shopping choices made in the home.

The Role of Federal Council and its Councilors

Much to the dismay and shock of some members, the Green Party is a business.  The purpose of this business is to be a participant in the democratic process of Canada.  To be a successful business in politics, parties need elected officials representing them in the Parliament.  The Federal Council is the executive of that business. 

So, in short, the Council’s role is to get Greens elected.

Because the GPC is a business, some business knowledge is necessary for Councilors.  There are a good number of staff members within the party that answer to either the Executive Director or the Leader.  They, in turn, report to Council.  Further, with a multi-million dollar budget which expands dramatically when including a campaign budget, experience with these levels of expenses is necessary.

Because the GPC is a political party, some political knowledge is necessary for Councilors.  Especially in a minority government, the winds of political unrest are always blowing.  Councilors need to understand not only the capabilities of the GPC but must balance that against the capabilities of its competitors… the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc.  As the role of Council is to elect Greens, Councilors have to bring forth strategic principles in order to successfully position the party, and individual candidates, to get elected.

So, again in short, Councilors should be able to read and comprehend a balance sheet, not be intimidated by the concept of millions of dollars in spending yet be able to discuss how to effectively spend that money to elect Green MPs.

What’s not the Role of Council and Councilors

Council is not to be the unwavering cheerleading squad of the Leader.  While Elizabeth May has tremendously increased the national exposure of the GPC, she doesn’t know everything about every topic.  While she has many tools at her disposal, a crystal ball is not one of them.  Members should be very weary of voting for any potential Councilor whose primary goal is to be a support system for the Leader for they are doing the party a serious disservice.  By putting partisanship before personal experience, that Councilor has now become a liability for the growth and development of the party.  What most Councilors fail to comprehend is that by taking on the senior role of Councilor, they have already committed to supporting the Leader.  If they fail to operate to their highest capacity by just being a “yes person”, they are ultimately failing the Leader and the party.

Council is not to be the bastion of consensus decision making processes.  It is very clear that there is a vast range of experiences and opinions within the GPC and to expect the Council of 24 of these opinions to unanimously agree on every topic is insane.  The business of the party comes to a massive halt while consensus is being obtained.  What the result of consensus is, at the Council table, is an over-analyzed, extremely delayed decision that results in having no bearing due to lack of timeliness.  Councilors should be having serious discussions on major topics facing the party and that will result in varying opinions of the best course of action.  Consensus is not required for Council decisions. A willingness to agree with the majority of Council and provide a united front for the membership is required.

Council is not to be a two hour phone call once a month.   For too many Councilors, this is the only involvement they have with Council business.  Emails go unanswered, opinions are never shared and participation on teleconferences consists of keeping the dogs quiet to reduce background noise.   The Federal Council is a time consuming volunteer position.  It requires substantial reading of background documents, research into various topics, reading and responding to hundreds of weekly emails on top of a two hour phone call.  The role of running a major political party should not be taken lightly.

Conclusion

I could go into more substantial length and detail but this is a journal entry, not a novel.  What members need to realize when running for Council and voting for potential Councilors is that Council is a serious volunteer role within the party.  Decisions made at that level have dramatic effects throughout the party.  Failure to make decisions also have dramatic effects as the decision making process is then left to staff and EDAs to determine on their own.

Councilors are not entitled to their positions.  Past histories of Council experience or previous party formation are not prerequisites for getting elected to current Councils.  A history of underperformance is not something members should be putting into leadership roles. 

Members should be challenging potential Councilors on why they are running and get them to elaborate on why they are qualified for the position as well as what they want to achieve as Councilors.  If they can’t answer these simple questions, they should be leading the party.

It’s the same litmus test we give our elected officials and our candidates for the GPC.

Mark Taylor is a former Councilor, EDA executive and campaign manager with the federal and provincial Green Party.  His day job is as a production engineer with an agricultural machine producer in Saskatchewan.  He and his wife are chasing two “soon-to-be politicos” around the house.  He blogs here.

Mark Taylor

In my last article, I had commented on the differences between activists and politicos and their effectiveness in the political arena.  The driving force behind this article is an analysis of the Alberta election and the Green Party’s role within it. 

My first draft of the Alberta Greens performance was a particularly scathing one but, with a little time, I have taken a larger overview of the election.  The difference is now a focus on why the Alberta Greens (not to mention the Alberta Liberals, NDP and Wildrose Alliance) failed instead of focusing on how they failed.

To understand the why, a differentation of politicos has to be defined and they are hacks and wonks.  Both terms are relatively derogatory but, none-the-less, descriptive enough to distinguish the different the two distinct personalities within politics.  While each has their own strengths, it is a balance of the two that results in successful politics and successful governing.

The first definition is that of a “wonk”, which is short for policy wonk.  These individuals are the ideologically driven members of a party.  Policy and principle are driving forces for these politicos.  They spend the time researching policy, defining policy and ensuring that the principle of the party are upheld both internally and externally of the party.    These members define themselves as “life-long” members and only change parties when they feel the party isn’t true to its principles.

“Hacks” are pretty much the antithesis of “wonks”.  These individuals are the competitors of the party.  Active democracy and developing political tools are the driving forces for these politicos.  They spend their time developing strategies for the party, strengthening the organization and ensuring that a legitimate political machine is operational for an election.  The challenge of winning entices them and are more likely to switch party allegiances or get behind a new leadership contender within the party.

From the definitions, it is pretty obvious why both are needed within a political party and why a balance of each is also necessary.  Wonks develop the overall direction of a party.  The developed policy determines whether the party is left-wing or right-wing, focused on a particular demographic or a “big tent”.  Hacks put together the infrastructure to build membership, generate funds and develop a media presence. 

It is impossible to win an election with wonks only,  since the tools to win (messaging, money, membership) are completely lacking.  While it is possible to win with hacks only, the resulting elected officials (or government) are lacking direction which becomes apparent after a short while.

Onto the Alberta example… the election was a prime example of a party of hacks taking on several parties of wonks.  The end result was a crushing defeat of all opposition parties and a continuing public disinterest of democracy.

The Greens, Liberals, NDP and Wildrose Alliance were all parties heavily focused on policy. The Greens were resting on the policy they developed over the last six years to fill their 2008 platform. The Liberals updated much of their platform from 2004 which included usurping much of the Greens’ 2004 environmental planks.  The NDP focus on typical NDP policies.  The Wildrose Alliance spent much of their time trying to define themselves as true “conservatives” especially in literal sense of the word. What all these parties lacked was any party infrastructure to get elected into roles where these policies could be implemented.

The Liberals, who ran a near full slate, have no real presence in rural Alberta, which is key to forming government in this province, nor did they have much of a media presence. 

The NDP ran a full slate but most of their candidates, outside of Edmonton, were paper candidates.  As well, most of the NDP’s focus was turning Edmonton Liberal seats into NDP ones which resulted in vote-splitting and Conservative taking the seats.  The

Wildrose Alliance was a merger of the Alberta Alliance and Wildrose Party, two right-of-centre parties, though this merger happened a couple of weeks before the writ drop and the combined party could field more than 57 (out of 83) candidates, most who were also paper.

The Greens, who I was involved with during the campaign, were the prime example of why wonks don’t win.  Despite 4 years of advance knowledge of this election, very little was done to prepare.  There were only two constituency associations formed in four years, only $20,000 was raised in 2007 and less than 30 candidates were identified by the writ drop. 

The first two weeks of a four week campaign were spent trying to locate over 50 paper candidates, garnering the registration signatures for each candidate and raising the funds to cover the registration costs.  The platform was hastily put out midway through the campaign and was poorly received including a failing grade on the post-secondary education plank.  There was no Leader’s Tour as the Leader was busy trying to be the campaign manager and communications director.  In short, the campaign was… unprepared, underfunded and only saw positive growth due to running more paper candidates than in 2004.

The provincial Progressive Conservatives and federal Conservatives are two examples of what happens when there is a misbalance of hacks in a party.  In the Alberta election, the PC war machine generated millions of dollars in funding, had their candidates in place (with the exception of a couple) well in advance, advertising was in place and signs were ordered.  Even the bastion of public policy announcement, the Throne Speech, was used as campaign tool (it was the announcement of a writ drop and the PC’s first campaign speech) instead of promoting the government priorities. 

Throughout the election, despite numerous gaffs by the Premier and PC candidates, they controlled messaging and had the only party with a legitimate GOTV machine.  This resulted in most of the province not showing up to vote and the majority of those that did, voted for the current government.

What will become evident in the coming months with the provincial government, as has already happened with their federal counterparts, is that once the agenda starts moving away from the controlled message, the government starts to look lost and lacking direction.  The Stephen Harper led Conservative Party won a minority government on a controlled message focused on 5 key points, maintained control throughout the election on its candidates and raised millions of dollars from a substantial database of supporters.  Off the start of their mandate, the Conservatives looked strong as the agenda was focused on their key points.  However, even to the surprise the governing party, the Conservatives managed to stay in power much longer than anticipated.  The major issues facing the federal government right now (weak economy, Afghanistan, environment) were not part of the Conservative messaging and they are at a loss in handling these portfolios.  

Instead of embracing the wonks of their party, the Conservative hacks silenced them in order to win.  The result is a lack of policy or advocates for those policies within the Conservative ranks.  For example, instead of embracing the ideas that MPs like Garth Turner promote, he was kicked out of caucus for speaking out against the hacks.  Now with a recession looming and the environment being a major issue with voters, having a wonk like Turner in the Conservative ranks would allow them to expand their ability to govern.  Now, the Liberal Party gets to utilize Turner’s skills instead of the government.

To summarize, there are generally two types of politicos: hack and wonks.  Each has a specific role to play within the party.  Those parties that understand and embrace the value of each of these players, the more successful they are.  Failure to ensure a balance within the party will result in the party looking like it’s adrift in the sea of policy or, worse, never be electable.

Mark Taylor was elected to the Federal Council of the GPC but resigned in Mar 08. Mark was a campaign manager in the recent Alberta election. Mark's day job is as an engineer in the oil and gas industry. He and his wife are “chasing two little soon-to-be politicos around the house.” He blogs here.

If the Greens truly want to succeed in the political arena, the culture needs to be changed otherwise the party will remain a “one-issue” protest vote who will eventually return to fringe status and be nothing more than a footnote in Canadian history.

Keep in mind that the Greens are a relatively young party, compared to other national parties, having been formed roughly 25 years ago.  The rationale of the formation of the party was simply to create another avenue to bring environmental issues forward during elections. 

It is clearly evident that party development and party building was not a priority for the Greens in the early days.   As examples:

• There was 5 years between the first two general meetings of the Party (1983 & 1988).
• Between 1983 and 2000, the GPC slate never ran more than 111 candidates or earned more than 0.81% of the national vote.
• Former Leader Jim Harris has stated that in his leadership campaign in 2003 he called the entire membership of 800 people.

 This final point is particularly noteworthy when you compare this fact to:

• Art Hanger, while campaigning for the nomination in Calgary Northeast, signed up 12,000 new members in that one riding, or
• Joe Volpe, in his failed campaign to become federal Liberal Party leader, signed up 35,000 new members.

It would be safe to say that up until 2003, the Green Party was only a political party in name only.  Most of the membership was environmental activists who were not only Green Party members but also heavily involved with a range of environmental groups (i.e. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.).  As such, the Party was being run by people who were exceptionally strong at organizing protests and rallies against government but had little to no experience in forming an organization whose mandate is to become government.

This is where the distinction between activism and politics, and their respective participants, has to be defined. 

Activism is an end-goal driven activity.  Regardless of the cause, the purpose of activism is to reach a specific goal and activists are focused on obtaining this goal by any and all means possible. 

Politics, on the other hand, is a process driven activity.  While there is generally an end-goal defined, politicos focus on following proper processes in order to reach the end-goal.

The best way to define this difference is how the activists and politicos interact with people in order to reach the end goal. 

Activists use a range of tactics starting with letter writing campaigns to sit-ins to rallies/demonstrations to direct confrontation to force a change in actions in order of obtaining a final solution.  Force is the correct word because the actions are all centered on forcing a change of action by frustration, embarrassment, harassment or intimidation.  Regardless of whether the actions of the activists are successful, relations between the parties are extremely volatile as things like decorum, trust and respect are non-existent and unlikely to ever form. 

Not only are the personal interactions of a negative scope but so is the outlook. Many of these activists will be heard stating that they are “happy” that other parties are “stealing” Green policies.  This is a defeatist attitude because they are more focused on the idea being forwarded than the party.

The politicos believe in the institution of democracy and see the party system as the means of implementing policy.  The outlook is based that the ideas can only be implemented by forwarding the party via the processes defined by democracy (i.e. Elections Canada and Parliament) and building relationships with the voters.

This is where the culture within the Green Party needs to change.  The Green Party is a registered political party that operates within the rules of democracy in Canada.  If the Green Party wants to truly participate in the political system, the volunteers and staff within the party needs to embrace the fact they are a political party and not an environmental non-profit organization. 

If/when this epiphany happens, this is when the focus of the party will be on party development and growth. 

• Riding associations will be formed in all electoral districts.
• Volunteers will be trained in voter identification, getting out the vote and fundraising. 
• Candidates will learn policy outside of environmentalism and develop skills like public speaking and networking. 
• Members will spend more time becoming better political players instead of better environmentalists.

 Mark Taylor was elected to the Federal Council of the GPC but resigned in Mar 08. Mark was a campaign manager in the recent Alberta election. Mark's day job is as an engineer in the oil and gas industry. He and his wife are “chasing two little soon-to-be politicos around the house.” He blogs here.