61
not clean. Even though nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gas, the radioactive waste and
the amount of natural resource they use still make it extremely dirty. A more complex
argument to make is that nuclear power is very expensive. There are several case studies on
why it is, most significantly the one on nuclear reactor in Finland exceeding its budget several
times, though on the proposal paper the budget still remain quite low, in which the nuclear
industry can make the argument further. After hearing these arguments, the researcher already
planned to make a graphic that would debunk several myths about nuclear power. As the
meeting continued and the researcher showed them some of his work and also explained the
plan for a motion infographic being made, Ms. Kengkaj and Ms. Senpong expressed to the
researcher that although nuclear power is still a threat, it is no longer their top priority. Coal is.
After the event in Japan that devastated the region and caused a big nuclear scare, the nuclear
industry’s sale pitch about their safe power fell apart. Plans for nuclear reactors were cancelled
but quietly, plans for coal reactors were being made. According to Greenpeace, coal reactors
are even worse because it pollutes the air, killing trees and farm animals Ms. Kengkaj and Ms.
Senpong claimed that the entire process of coal energy is very damaging to the environment.
Greenpeace South East Asia was going to protest on coal in the rural area where the reactors
were being built. Greenpeace gave the researcher several books on all subjects ranging from
nuclear, to coal, to conserving energy. The researcher went back home and started trying to
manage unorganized information and complex issues he received. After that, Ms. Kengkaj
contacted the researcher with even more documents on the harmfulness of coal. The
researcher was set to do a movie on coal since the people at Greenpeace seem to be very
passionate about this particular issue. While researching about Greenpeace itself on the
internet, the researcher realized some responses to the organization was very negative. There
were claims that their tactics were very antagonistic and they refused to listen to reason. While
these arguments are obviously made by detractors who probably benefit in some ways from
the destruction of the environment, Greenpeace’s image to the public still concerned the
researcher. One of the literatures given to the researcher by Greenpeace caught his attention; it
was a book: “Energy [r]evolution: a Sustainable World Energy Outlook” by Sven Teske (2010).
The book was different in terms of how it provided solutions instead of just stating the
problems. The researcher felt the motion infographic delivering this message will be a different
kind of communication for Greenpeace.
