Why British Columbia’s Fusion-Only Nuclear Policy Hurts Real Climate Action

British Columbia prides itself on environmental leadership and progressive energy policies. Yet, BC’s outright prohibition of nuclear energy stands in stark contradiction to its enthusiastic embrace of fusion startups like General Fusion. This confusing stance not only undermines the province’s clean energy credibility but also unintentionally provides cover to fossil fuel giants such as Occidental Petroleum (Oxy), which have historically fought nuclear fission precisely because it poses a genuine threat to their lucrative fossil fuel business.

Let's unpack this contradiction clearly. The BC government currently outlaws nuclear fission technology, explicitly preventing the development of clean, safe, and immediately deployable solutions like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). At the same time, however, BC openly supports fusion startups, championing their theoretical promise despite the fact that fusion remains experimental, commercially unproven, and potentially decades away from viability.

Why the double standard?

From a safety perspective, the choice is clear: modern nuclear fission reactors, particularly advanced SMRs, have an outstanding global safety record supported by decades of real-world experience and stringent regulation. SMRs employ passive safety systems, inherently stable fuel designs, and proven operational safeguards. Meanwhile, fusion technology, while conceptually appealing, is still at a highly experimental stage with no commercial track record. Its safety profile is almost entirely theoretical, involving challenges such as neutron activation, extreme operational temperatures, and complex reactor conditions that have yet to be fully understood or tested at scale.

On waste management, the common perception that fusion produces no significant radioactive waste is overly simplistic. Fusion reactors generate radioactive waste through neutron activation of structural reactor materials. While potentially lower in quantity compared to traditional fission reactors, the handling and disposal methods for this waste remain largely untested at scale. Conversely, fission technology already has mature and robust waste management solutions, exemplified by Finland’s and Sweden’s successful geological repositories and France’s sophisticated reprocessing techniques.

Practically, the discrepancy grows even clearer. Fission is proven, reliable, scalable, and immediately available for significant decarbonization. Fusion, despite massive investment and decades of research, remains years away from proving its commercial and technical viability. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, prioritizing experimental fusion technology at the expense of proven fission solutions is not just illogical—it's irresponsible.

Perhaps most troublingly, BC’s inconsistent stance provides political and reputational cover for fossil fuel corporations like Oxy. These companies have long opposed nuclear fission, understanding it as a direct competitor to their fossil fuel products. By embracing fusion alone under the umbrella of "advanced nuclear," Oxy and similar entities can appear forward-looking and environmentally responsible without jeopardizing their core business model. This strategic embrace of fusion, combined with opposition to practical and immediately implementable fission solutions, actively undermines genuine climate action by delaying viable alternatives that threaten fossil fuel dependency.

It's time for British Columbia to reconsider its nuclear stance. Maintaining a prohibition on nuclear fission while supporting speculative fusion technology serves neither environmental nor safety goals. Instead, it preserves the interests of fossil fuel giants at the cost of genuine climate solutions. Embracing modern, proven nuclear fission technology, particularly SMRs, would not only clarify BC’s energy policy but would position the province as a true leader in the global fight against climate change.