Skip to main content

Robert Stone and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Clash After Screening of Pandora's Promise

On Monday night, I traveled to Pleasantville, NY to attend a screening of Pandora's Promise. While I had originally intended to provide live coverage of the event via NEI's Twitter feed, I was foiled by poor reception inside the theater. I'm writing this summary to take it's place.

Pleasantville is only a 27-minute ride from Indian Point Energy Center, and a number of local anti-nuclear activists as well as plant employees were in attendance. All of us were met at the theater entrance by a volunteer from Riverkeeper who was distributing a copy of Pandora’s False Promises, a primer produced by Paul Gunter’s Beyond Nuclear. The presence of the Riverkeeper volunteer led the film’s director, Robert Stone, to quip from the podium that it was the “first time he had been picketed.”

I'm planning on posting a full review of the movie here on NEI Nuclear Notes ahead of Friday's nationwide premiere, so I won’t go into much detail concerning the film itself. From a personal perspective, it was heartening to see our industry’s value proposition explained in such an inspirational and artful manner. I don’t doubt that nuclear enthusiasts will enjoy the film and want to share it with friends and family.

Following the screening, Andrew Revkin of the New York Times moderated a discussion between Stone and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of Riverkeeper, and it was here that the tenor of the event became contentious. The theater is not far from Kennedy’s boyhood home, and it was clear from the start that he views the film as something of a personal affront, a feeling that was no doubt magnified by the fact that he makes an appearance. In a brief clip, Kennedy is seen giving a speech to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association where he talks about how he believes that large renewable energy projects are actually natural gas plants.

Kennedy was not pleased, claiming that the clip was taken out of context, and that overall the film was “an elaborate hoax.” Among the more colorful exchanges:
  • According to Kennedy, none of the individuals who appeared in the film were actual environmentalists and all were compromised by the fact that they either worked for or had been paid off by the nuclear industry. That led Revkin to interject, "You invest in solar, why should I believe you?"
  • Kennedy said he considers The Breakthrough Institute to be an “anti-environmental” organization, and that founders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are “liars.” Stone retorted,"Why would I or any people in my film, lie?"
  • When Kennedy admitted he didn’t know much about climate change advocate Mark Lynas, Revkin interjected that he was a person “who cared about science.”
  • And when Kennedy complained that there weren’t any alternative voices in the film that might have disputed studies concerning the health impacts of radiation, Stone stood his ground saying, “I will not put people in my films who would say documented untruths.” And after one extended Kennedy tirade, Stone said “you shouldn’t be attacking me, you should be attacking the fossil fuel industry.”
As for Stone, while he might have seemed taken aback by some of Kennedy's comments, he was clearly pleased with his finished product and the reaction it's been getting as he's been screening the documentary around the country, primarily on college campuses. According to Stone, the ideas in the film have "really brought people together," around the issue of nuclear energy, with the support crossing partisan lines.

"The solid middle realizes that climate change is a serious issue," said Stone. "To take nuclear out of the equation when we need it most is irresponsible."


Anonymous said…
If people are going to read "Pandora's False Promises", they should also read this.
Anonymous said…
The enviromental movement has already more or less taken coal out of the equation. If you remove nuclear then that means thatall you are left with is natural gas which only provides a fraction of our electricty now.

I know enviromentalists will point out solar and wind, but wind is only even remotely economical in a small percentage of the country and solar isn't economical anywhere and is several times more expensive in most of the country.

This country needs to get realistic about its energy strategy. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy and we will never recover from the current economic malaise if we essentially outlaw all of the most economical forms of energy. Laws designed to stop CO2 have no real effect on global emmisions, all they amount to is the countries implimenting them shooting themselves in the foot while the jobs and economic growth move elsewhere to countries without such laws. The net CO2 emmisions actually rise because the jobs are going to countries with much dirtier forms of energy than we have and require even more energy in trasportation costs to ship raw materials and manufactured goods across the globe.

The only way the human race could get serious about reducing global warming is if there was a one world government which could enact the same laws worldwide. To be quite honest the simplest rule would simply be to cap world population at current levels. The earth is a finite resource and there is only a finite number of humans required to farm the land, fish the seas and manufacture the goods we need. The exponential growth of population is the cause of 90% of our problems as the number of people exceeds the carrying capacity of this planet. It makes no sense to accelerate the destruction of this planet simply to keep alive an ever-expanding population of people who have no benefit to society.
Rod Adams said…
Eric - thank you for sharing your insights and experience of watching the post film debate. I sure hope that Revkin follows through with a post that embeds the video; it sounds like great theater.

"Divide and conquer" is a time tested tactic in communications battles; the antinuclear opposition has generally been quite a bit more united than those of us who support nuclear energy technology development.

My prediction is that Pandora's Promise is going to help separate the thoughtful, progressive environmentalists who want everyone to live a better life with a lighter footprint on a cleaner planet from those who simply want to adhere to a anti-human mantra of fewer people on earth, most living with lower expectations.
SteveK9 said…
Ridiculous, over-the-top personal attacks and exaggeration from RFK. This is a good thing. If the other anti-nukes react like this, Pandora's Promise will have an even more positive effect than I though.
Anonymous said…
Going the personal attacks route is a game Kennedy best not play. His background has some seriously huge skeletons in the closet. Having the Kennedy name affords some protection from scandal and there are idiots out there who will still fall down and kiss his feet no matter what, but for the most part that innoculation only goes so far. He may cross the line somewhere and find that the way back isn't all that inviting.
Bob Stevenson said…
I watched Pandora's Promise in a theater in Dallas. Me an 4 other people on weekday afternoon. I was impressed and I do believe the film makes a strong case for the redevelopment and use of nuclear energy. If the old school liberals, still trapped in place by their dogmas, who can't ever admit to being wrong about anything want to keep bending over and kissing Kennedy back sides... well, that is too bad. Truly open minded people should see this film and decide. Kennedy type liberals - never mind. Don't bother. You just might get so mad you blow a fuse.
Anonymous said…
Robert Stone seems to have made a very interesting and honest documentary about nuclear energy and just asks people to think.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just seems to operate from a sense of entitlement and thinks everyone should take what he says because... HE is a KENNEDY! And he just drones on and on without really saying much.

Bob Stevenson said…
Robert Stone makes a very interesting documentary that just asks you to think about nuclear energy again and keep an open mind.

Robert F. Kennedy drones on and on and.. calls Stone a liar and calls the people in the documentary liars and.... thinks he has the right to tell everyone what is true and that his word must be accepted because he is .... a Kennedy.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…