Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumRobert Stone comments on environmentalists' impressions of "Pandora's Promise"
"What kind of blowback have you experienced from the anti-nuke establishment? And Im especially curious about those who havent seen the film because people like to criticize things before they see them.
Theres an awful lot of that going on. The criticism of the film has almost entirely come from people who havent seen it.
The reception to the movie has been overwhelmingly positive. Going to Sundance thats a hardcore environmental left place, I would say, a bastion of anti-nuclear activism if ever there is one, in the film community at least I would say 80% of the people walked out of the film favorable to what we were saying. It completely flipped from going in. I would ask going in and then coming out. People were changing their minds.
One of the most amazing screenings I had was at Mountain Film in Telluride, which is an environmental film festival. All the leaders in the environmental movement were there. Wind power people and solar people
There was a big environmental conference going on. There were about ten anti-hydro-fracking movies there. It was an activist, environmental film festival. There were 650 people packed to the gills, and they watched the film and it was like 98% that the people in that auditorium were won over. People were coming up to me saying they completely changed their mind. People whod been against nuclear their whole life."
http://documentarychannel.com/interview-pandoras-promise-director-robert-stone-on-continuing-a-pro-nuclear-energy-doc-after-fukushima-and-still-changing-minds/
Trailer
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Thanks for posting this.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... I am pretty skeptical about the statements like "... 98% of the people were won over." I find it difficult to believe that hardcore advocates of anything will ever change their minds at that rate.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)but I urge you to see it. IMO it's well enough made so that no one comes out with exactly the same opinion they had when they went in.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)By Joe Romm on Jun 17, 2013 at 12:28 pm
You may be wondering if you should see the new pro-nuke movie, Pandoras Promise. I think its safe to say that the answer is a resounding no.
Indeed, the most stunning thing Ive read about the movie comes from someone who is generally positive about it, NY Times blogger Andy Revkin:
The film also avoids discussing the high costs and logistical and policy hurdles to adding substantially to the countrys, or worlds, existing fleets of operating nuclear plants. The scale and costs required to cut into coal use using any technology nuclear, wind, solar or otherwise is incredibly daunting.
Huh? Doing a movie about nuclear power without discussing the high costs, would be like doing a movie comparing the US healthcare system to that of other countries without discussing the high costs!!!
<snip>
Indeed, while solar power and wind power continue to march down the experience curve to ever lower costs, nuclear power appears headed in the opposite direction.
Nuclear power has a negative learning curve:
NY Times reviewer Manohla Dargis writes:
Pandoras Promise is as stacked as advocate movies get . In brief or so the movies one-sided reasoning goes everything that anti-nuclear energy activists and skeptics have thought about the issue is wrong .
But you need to make an argument. A parade of like-minded nuclear-power advocates who assure us that everything will be all right just doesnt cut it.
Lots more at: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/17/2158951/pandoras-promise-nuclear-powers-trek-from-too-cheap-to-meter-to-too-costly-to-matter-much/
The outright rejection of Shellenberger as any sort of environmentalist was refreshing after all the hype about him the nuclear acolytes have been pushing.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Ed Lyman, senior scientist
June 12, 2013
Theres nothing I enjoy more than a good documentary: one that makes its case in a compelling way without resorting to crude propaganda techniques or insulting the intelligence of its audience. A good documentary treats opposing views with respect but then demolishes them with iron-clad arguments and well-supported evidence. And in addition, it should be a piece of engaging filmmaking.
A documentary of such caliber on the issue of nuclear energy would be very useful. Nuclear energy is such a polarizing issue that the films it inspires tend to play to the extremes. Yet it is a complex subject that does not lend itself to a simple black or white treatment. A film that gives the question of the merits of nuclear energy the respect that it is due would not shy away from the messy middle. It should instead provide a sound framework for how viewers should think about the debate and assess the available facts in order to come to their own decisions.
Unfortunately, Pandoras Promise is not such a movie. By oversimplifying the issues, trivializing opposing viewpoints and mocking those who express them, and selectively presenting information in a misleading way, it serves more to obfuscate than to illuminate. As such, it adds little of value to the substantive debate about the merits of various energy sources in a carbon-constrained world.
Pandoras Promise, taking a page from late-night infomercials, seeks to persuade via the testimonials of a number of self-proclaimed environmentalists who used to be opposed to nuclear power but have now changed their minds, including Stewart Brand, Michael Shellenberger, Gwyneth Cravens, Mark Lynas and Richard Rhodes. The documentary tries to make its case primarily by impressing the audience with the significance of the personal journeys of these nuclear power converts, not by presenting the underlying arguments in a coherent way. This strategy puts great emphasis on the credibility of these spokespeople. Yet some of them sabotage their own credibility. When Lynas says that in his previous life as an anti-nuclear environmentalist he didnt know that there was such a thing as natural background radiation, or Michael Shellenberger admitted to once taking on faith the claim that Chernobyl caused a million casualties, the audience may reasonably wonder why it should accept what they believe now that they are pro-nuclear.
My hand got tired trying to jot down all the less-than-half truths put forth by the talking heads in the film, which could have benefited from some fact-checking....
http://allthingsnuclear.org/movie-review-put-pandoras-promise-back-in-the-box/
PamW
(1,825 posts)What do you expect from UCS. The whole reason for the formation of UCS was to disparage nuclear power.
As a physicist, I cringe any time I see something from Ed Lyman. He "thinks" he found "half-truths".
Lyman still claims that the Sandia test of the F-4 Phantom II slamming into the concrete wall was faulty since the concrete wall wasn't anchored to the ground.
Lyman claims to be a physicist, but the proof that the lack of anchoring of the wall makes an less than 4% effect on the results is a proof that can be done on the back of an envelope by someone that has only taken high school physics.
Let's face it; for Lyman; when the science and physics is in conflict with the anti-nuclear dogma; the anti-nuclear dogma wins.
As a scientist, I can't have ANY respect for any scientist that puts his own politics and agenda ahead of scientific truth.
PamW