Showtime premieres
its nine-part documentary series Years of Living Dangerously
tonight at 10 p.m. U.S. EDT. The series uses some of the biggest names in
Hollywood to draw attention to the impacts of climate change. James Cameron, Jerry
Weintraub and Arnold Schwarzenegger are on the team of executive producers,
while celebrities noted for their environmental advocacy appear on camera
including Don Cheadle, Harrison Ford, Matt Damon, Ian Somerhalder and Jessica
Alba.
What are they hoping to accomplish with this series? Executive producer David
Gelber summed it up:
The goal of Years of Living Dangerously is to galvanize a national conversation on the realities of climate change and inspire people to share their own stories and empower them to get involved in solutions.
I watched the first episode, available early and for free on YouTube, and understand why the reviews are extremely
positive. It is a beautiful piece from a filmmaking standpoint, but then of
course these folks aren’t awards darlings for nothing. During the first hour,
viewers follow Ford, Cheadle and New York
Times columnist Thomas Friedman
to three countries filled with stark shots of droughts, job loss, burnt forests
and civil war. The creators’ meaning is clear: climate change is real and
wreaking havoc in myriad ways across the world.
Climate scientist and Evangelical Christian Katharine Hayhoe provided the only thing close to a call to action in the episode,
saying we need “policies in place to actually start curbing our carbon
emissions.” At that point I thought, “Here comes nuclear.” Yet there was no
mention of policies favoring nuclear, or any energy policy solutions for that
matter. I didn’t really expect solutions to be presented at length
during the first episode. Hints would have been nice though.
I found myself repeatedly
wondering if the series would offer realistic policy solutions and, more
importantly, if these stories were compelling in a way that moves governments
toward those solutions. Because that is the scale we are talking about here.
Sure, average viewers can do their part, embracing energy efficiency and
sharing their stories. But what does the series propose for curbing emissions
on a global scale while still meeting energy demand for a growing population? That
remains to be seen.
Don Cheadle, Katharine Hayhoe and Andrew Farley |
Ted Nordhaus
and Michael Shellenberger of The Breakthrough
Institute recently shared their concern in a New York Times
op-ed that the series’ approach will not result in meaningful change, and that
“turning down the rhetoric and embracing solutions like nuclear energy” would
have been more effective. I want to reserve judgment until I’ve seen the
remaining episodes, though their initial concern does seem warranted. The series’ website hints that they
will call for a halt to burning fossil fuels and a ramp up of renewables, while nuclear
energy gets no mention.
I do have some hope, and that’s because there are also two
powerful pro-nuclear voices behind the series: Paul Allen
and James Hansen. Co-producer Paul Allen previously put his money behind the pro-nuclear documentary film Pandora’s Promise. Allen said this about the film and nuclear:
Even before Pandora’s Promise was made, I’d become convinced that nuclear energy should be part of the climate change solution. Once I saw Pandora’s Promise, I knew the film would get people thinking about nuclear in a whole new way. I like that the film lays out the facts and then viewers can make up their own minds about nuclear power based on the facts and information presented. Documentaries like this open people’s minds and lead to informed decision-making, which is critical if we want to tackle the world’s biggest challenges.
Science advisor James Hansen, formerly NASA’s chief climate
scientist, came out in favor of nuclear energy last year and has been grabbing
headlines since. Last March, he published a paper demonstrating that nuclear saved 1.8 million lives by replacing fossil fuels. In November, he joined
three other noted climate scientists in issuing an open letter that urged
environmentalists and politicians to support nuclear energy as a primary way to
reduce carbon emissions.
James Hansen |
Here are the key points the Years team needs to consider:
- Clean-air electricity
sources—nuclear, hydropower, geothermal, wind and solar—are important to
America’s diverse energy mix, because they do not produce greenhouse
gases. Nuclear energy is the largest of these sources generating 64 percent of America’s clean air electricity.
- Renewables like wind and
solar are part of the answer, but have limitations
such as intermittent power production. While renewables are growing fast,
they are nowhere close to producing the 770 billion kilowatt-hours of
electricity that America’s nuclear energy facilities generated in 2012. Notably,
Hansen once told the Associated Press, “They’re cheating themselves [environmentalists]
if they keep believing this fiction that all we need is renewable energy.”
- A nuclear power plant’s
byproduct consists of used uranium fuel rods safely stored in pools or concrete containers rather
than CO2 or air pollution associated with acid rain or urban smog.
- By using nuclear energy to
produce electricity, America prevents the emission of 570 million metric tons of CO2 per year. That’s the
same as preventing the emissions produced by 110 million cars—the vast
majority of U.S. cars on the road today.
- Mainstream analyses conducted
by independent organizations have shown that reducing carbon emissions
will require a diverse energy portfolio and that nuclear energy is the only low-carbon option to help meet forecasted global electricity demand.
Comments
Also, Tara, I don't think you give nuclear enough credit for cutting US carbon emissions. In 2011, nuclear energy delivered just under half (45.6%) as much power to the grid as coal. In the same year, the electric power sector emitted 1.718 billion tons of CO2 from coal. Had the nuclear-generated electricity been replaced by coal, the extra emissions would have come to 783 million tons, not a mere 570.