It has been nearly three years since Japan's nuclear disaster. Just at the moment when ocean-bound pollution from Fukushima is
reaching the Pacific coast of North America, with potential but unconfirmed impacts on fisheries and crops, the pro-nuclear lobby has mobilized in the United States. A new documentary is out,
Pandora's Promise (2013), which extols the 'green' virtues of nuclear power. Anyone
concerned about climate change, the film insists, should promote nuclear energy. Or, to put it another way, if you are anti-carbon, you have to be pro-nuclear. This campaign reveals the ugliness of political plays around the energy business, as it plays down any dangers from Fukushima's fallout.
Robert Stone, producer and director of
film, measured energy safety in terms of "deaths
per terawatt," that is, how many people die per unit of energy produced. Within
the
first minute of the film, one narrator instructs the audience that the political outlook
of the documentary is "liberal democrat." A liberal political
concern for the environment is aligned with the interests of the nuclear
industry.
Whatever you do, the film enjoins,
don't lose your head,
don't panic about Fukushima. The director's statement insists that if
you want to be a liberal, true and forward-thinking environmentalist,
then you must be pro-nuclear:
I’ve
considered myself a passionate environmentalist for about as long as I
can remember. My mother read me Silent Spring when I was nine and the
specter of a Cold War nuclear arms race was not an uncommon topic around
the dinner table in my family. So my anti-nuclear and environmental
roots run very deep. My first film was an anti-nuclear weapons
documentary, Radio Bikini, that premiered at Sundance in 1988 and went
on to receive an Oscar® nomination for Feature Documentary. My film
Earth Days, which was Closing Night Film at Sundance in 2009, chronicles
the rise of the environmental movement of my youth. In the course of
making Earth Days I began for the first time to see the deep pessimism
that has infused today’s environmental movement, and to recognize the
depth of its failure to address climate change. It was initially
through getting to know Stewart Brand that I was introduced to a new and
more optimistic view of our environmental challenges that was
pro-development and pro-technology. From there I began to seek out and
discover a small but growing cadre of people around the world who were
beginning to stand up and challenge what had become the rigid orthodoxy
of modern environmentalism.
It’s
no easy thing for me to have come to the conclusion that the rapid
deployment of nuclear power is now the greatest hope we have for saving
us from an environmental catastrophe. Yet this growing realization has
led me to question many of the founding tenets of traditional
environmentalism, from the belief that we can dramatically reduce our
energy demand through energy efficiency to the belief that solar and
wind power will one day power the planet. The almost theological
adherence to a set of unquestionable beliefs by most liberals and
environmentalists has likely contributed as much or more to prolonging
our addiction to fossil fuels as the equally appalling state of denial
among many conservatives when it comes to climate change. Both sides
are locked into rigid, self-righteous ideological positions with
potentially disastrous consequences for us all unless we begin to face
the facts.
For
the past three years I have devoted almost every waking moment to
taking these ideas and shaping them into a documentary about what is
perhaps the biggest and most unwieldy subjects imaginable: how do we
continue to power human civilization without destroying the
environmental conditions that has made modern civilization possible? I
knew from the beginning that this film would have to be firmly grounded
in personal narrative if it were to have any impact at all on a mass
audience. Early on I determined that the film would be framed around a
few key individuals who had undergone a dramatic intellectual
metamorphosis on the issue of nuclear power, as I, myself had done. The
evolution of their apostasy on this issue – their journey from being
staunchly anti-nuclear to passionately pro-nuclear -forms the central
dramatic arc of the film. My hope is to take the audience on a similar
journey of discovery through the process of watching the film.
PANDORA’S PROMISE
is without question the most personal and important film of my career.
I’ve learned that just about everything I thought I knew about energy
turned out to be wrong. And most of what I had been lead to believe
about nuclear energy and its historical events turned out to be
significantly different from what had really happened.
The
making of this film has taken me to four continents on a grand tour of
the hidden world of nuclear energy. I’ve been inside the doomed power
plant at Chernobyl (the first cameraman to do so, I believe), deep into
the Fukushima exclusion zone, and to a popular beach in Brazil that has a
naturally occurring background radiation level that’s over 300 times
what is considered “normal!” I’ve visited a little known research
facility in Idaho where a new kind of reactor was developed 20 years ago
that can’t meltdown and is fueled by nuclear waste.
If
there was a single ah-ha moment it was when I was granted entry into a
room in France (the size of a basketball court) where all the waste from
powering 80% of the country for 30 years is stored: four cylindrical
tubes 10 meters long and 1 meter wide are all that’s left from powering
the city of Paris for 30 years with clean nuclear energy! I thought,
“My God, what on Earth were we thinking?”
Robert Stone
April 22, 2013