Leslie Kemeny
Leslie Kemeny - where does he get such barking mad ideas from?
Notes from Jim Green
Friends of the Earth
2 November 2009
jim.green@foe.org.au
Blatant misrepresentation and false quotation by Kemeny
Leslie Kemeny quotes a 2009 International Energy Agency report which purportedly states that "nuclear power is the technology which must be accelerated and promoted and relied upon if the world is to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions at an acceptable level" ('Clean, green nuclear energy will save us', The Age and SMH, 24/2/2010).
This is an outright deception and misrepresentation – the IEA report contains no such statement. It merely states that nuclear power is ONE technology which can lower emissions and it gives much greater weight to energy efficiency and renewable energy. Indeed energy efficiency and renewables contribute eight times more to climate change abatement than nuclear power under the IEA scenario. <www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/climate_change_excerpt.pdf>
Kemeny claims that five nuclear power reactors would result in a 5-20% reduction in Australia's greenhouse emissions But using figures from the 2006 Switkowski report, five reactors would only reduce emissions by 3.5% if they replaced coal-fired plants and less than 2% if they replaced gas. Five reactors would be unlikely to reduce emissions at all if they replaced renewables and energy efficiency.
Kemeny falsely claims that Australia is the only one of the world's top 25 economies that has not "prioritised" nuclear power and that all G20 countries are investing in nuclear power. Of the G20 countries, five do not operate nuclear power reactors and only eight rely on nuclear power for 10% or more of their electricity. The correlation between nuclear power and national wealth is tenuous at best. A much stronger correlation can be drawn between nuclear power and nuclear weapons – the nine countries with nuclear weapons account for 58% of global nuclear power capacity.
Leslie Kemeny a nuclear crusader in his own write
Crikey 12/11/09
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/11/leslie-kemeny-a-nuclear-crusader-in-...
Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, Australia, writes:
Other than paid columnists, who has had the most opinion pieces published in Australian newspapers in the past 40 years?
Retired academic and strident nuclear advocate Professor Leslie Kemeny wins by a country mile. And good luck to him -- he's nothing if not persistent. A rough calculation suggests he has had more than 200 opinion pieces published, dating from the mid-1970s if not earlier.
The remarkable thing is that it's pretty much the same opinion piece every time. His standard article:
* nearly always contains an appeal to "informed realism" as a reason to expand the nuclear industry;
* often refers to unnamed "international experts" who are purportedly "appalled" or "bemused" at Australia's failure to expand the nuclear industry (recently, "the world" was "bemused" that Australia had not yet developed nuclear power);
* there's usually a reference to the "pseudo-science" or "coercive utopianism" or "hidden socio-political agendas" of critics of the nuclear industry or supporters of "renewable energy" (a term that always appears in quotation marks for reasons unexplained); and
* expansion of the nuclear industry is often presented as being "inevitable" (though Kemeny of all people would know otherwise -- he has witnessed the demise of plans in Australia for nuclear power, uranium enrichment, an international nuclear repository, etc.).
Kemeny is fond of sweeping claims, including many that do not stand up to scrutiny. For example, he could not possibly produce evidence to support his claim that: "Most energy experts now believe that the only effective solution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is the global acceptance of nuclear power technology."
Nuclear expansion is always portrayed as a pathway to wealth and prosperity and these assertions are unencumbered by any connection with reality. Kemeny writes that exporting uranium without first enriching it "is just plain dumb", yet the Switkowski Report, BHP Billiton and others have argued that an enrichment industry in Australia would be an economic white elephant.
There are numerous factual errors; for example, a recent opinion piece claims that "about 60" countries have embraced nuclear power, nearly twice the true figure. Kemeny claims that the Chernobyl death toll is 56, but a 2005 study by the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated 9000 deaths and other scientific studies estimate a death toll in the tens of thousands.
Many of Kemeny's "facts" could be described as outliers; for example, he gives a figure of five kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of nuclear power, yet the 2006 Switkowski Report put the figure 12 times higher. Some of his "facts" are, on closer inspection, circular and self-evident; for example, he seems impressed that every country importing uranium from Australia operates nuclear power reactors. Every last one of them -- whoever would've thunk it?
Twenty-five years ago, Kemeny had already published dozens and dozens of newspaper articles, and they were subjected to critical analysis by Professor Brian Martin, who was then teaching in the science faculty at the Australian National University.
Martin concluded his analysis: "In quite a number of ways, Kemeny in his public advocacy of nuclear power does not fit the image of the objective, trustworthy expert: he addresses only some of the issues and seldom replies to anti-nuclear arguments; he presents large amounts of irrelevant material; he is subject to inaccuracy, and on occasion fails to acknowledge his mistakes; he continually denigrates opponents; he speaks from a position representing a potential conflict of interest; and his expertise is mostly irrelevant to the issues, or of doubtful quality." (www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82ecol.html)
Kemeny threatened to sue and claimed that legal counsel had suggested a five-figure sum for damages. There was no apology and no legal action.
Kemeny sometimes lets fly with a conspiracy theory (it's much the same conspiracy theory as Ian Plimer's -- two men of the same generation and social cohort). Kemeny writes: "Radical green activism and global terrorism can form dangerous, even deadly, alliances. The 'coercive utopianism' of radical greens, their avid desire for media publicity and their hidden socio-political agendas can produce societal outcomes that are sometimes violent and ugly."
Where he gets such barking-mad ideas from is anyone's guess. Political demagogue Lyndon LaRouche makes similar comments: "This utterly depraved, dionysian cult-formation found its echoed, more violent expression in late 1980s Germany, where the anti-nuclear, fascist rioting reached near to the level of outright civil war ..."
Kemeny believes the anti-nuclear movement is "supported by immense funds from affluent right-wing interests" and that it should be "recognised for what it is -- anti-working-class activism aimed at maintaining the last "status quo" for a fortunate minority".
Again, there are echoes of comments made by LaRouche about the "anti-blue collar, anti-industrial, anti-nuclear power, and green traits of that increasingly influential, 'white-collar baby-boomer' portion of the population".
Which leads to the question -- have Kemeny and LaRouche been seen in the same room together? If so, it proves they are in cahoots. If not, they're likely one and the same person. Now there's a conspiracy theory!
Clive Hamilton's comments in Crikey about Ian Plimer also seem apt for Kemeny: "The emergence of the environment and peace movements in the 1970s challenged the benefits of nuclear technology, the power of the military-industrial complex and the claims of science to neutrality and benevolence ... The criticism of the hitherto unquestioned place of science and technology destabilised the power and privilege of the scientific elite."
Hence a cohort of disgruntled, elderly, and sometimes conspiratorial nuclear scientists.
Here is a longer critique from which the above Crikey article was drawn ...
Other than paid newspaper columnists, who has had the most opinion pieces published in Australian newspapers in the past 40 years?
Retired academic and strident nuclear advocate Leslie Kemeny wins by a country mile. And good luck to him - he's nothing if not persistent.
Kemeny has had well over 100 opinion pieces published over the decades, probably 200+, perhaps even 300+. The remarkable thing is that it's pretty much the same opinion piece every time. His standard opinion piece:
-- nearly always argues for development of the entire fuel cycle in Australia - uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, power reactors, reprocessing and repositories.
-- nearly always contains an appeal to "informed realism" as a reason to expand the nuclear industry
-- there's often a reference to unnamed "international experts" who are purportedly appalled and/or bemused at Australia's failure to expand the nuclear industry. Recently, "the world" was "bemused" that Australia had not yet developed nuclear power.
-- there's usually a reference to the 'pseudo-science' and 'coercive utopianism' and 'hidden socio-political agendas' of critics of the nuclear industry or supporters of "renewable energy" (a term which always appears in quotation marks for reasons unexplained)
-- expansion of the nuclear industry is often presented as being "inevitable" (though Kemeny of all people would know otherwise - he has witnessed the rise and fall of plans in Australia for nuclear power, uranium enrichment, an international nuclear repository etc).
Here's a typical Kemenyism: "It now seems inevitable that informed realism, globalisation and commercial realities will dictate for this country the use of domestic nuclear power generation and full involvement in the global nuclear fuel cycle industry."
And another: "A secure, clean and cheap energy future for Australia in which nuclear power plays a pivotal role is a categorical imperative."
Kemeny is fond of sweeping claims, including many that do not stand up to scrutiny, e.g.
"[E]nergy experts are agreed that for Australia domestic nuclear power and involvement in the global nuclear fuel cycle industry would be a commercially rewarding enterprise."
or this ...
"Most energy experts now believe that the only effective solution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is the global acceptance of nuclear power technology."
As you can see there are also frequent appeals to expertise and to unnamed experts.
Nuclear expansion is always portrayed as a pathway to wealth and prosperity and these assertions are unencumbered by any connection with reality. Kemeny writes: "Exporting yellowcake without value adding is just plain dumb." Yet the Switkowski report, BHP Billiton and others have rejected enrichment on economic grounds. According to BHP Billiton: "Enrichment has massive barriers to entry ... We do not believe that conversion and enrichment would be commercially viable in Australia. ... The economics of any Australian conversion, enrichment or fabrication do not look positive, either individually or collectively."
There are numerous factual errors - e.g. Kemeny's latest opinion piece (Oct 2009) claims that "about 60" countries have embraced nuclear power - nearly twice the true figure. Elsewhere he writes that "Many of the 190 nations scheduled to attend Copenhagen have adopted nuclear power ..." Many countries have indeed adopted nuclear power - 31 to be precise - and many more have not.
Kemeny claims that "As of 2005 the total [Chernobyl] death toll is 56." But detailed 2005-06 reports by the UN estimate a death toll of 9000 and other studies estimate a much higher death toll. That Kemeny puts the death toll at 56 lends weight to the view that some of the most unscientific, anti-scientific gibberish sometimes comes from scientists themselves.
Many of Kemeny's 'facts' could be described as outliers, e.g. he gives a figure of 5 kgs of CO2-e per megawatt-hour of nuclear power, yet the Switkowski report puts the figure 12 times higher. Likewise, Kemeny's statement that China plans to have "possibly 100 plants by 2030" is an improbable outlier given that only 11 now exist.
Some of his 'facts' are, on closer inspection, circular, e.g. he seems impressed that every one of the countries importing uranium from Australia operates nuclear power reactors - every last one of them. Whoever would have thunk it?!
Kemeny threatened to sue following publication of a journal article - 'The Naked Experts' - in 1984 by academic Brian Martin. The article and the correspondence are posted at: www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82ecol.html
Prof. Martin concluded his analysis of Kemeny's writings: "In quite a number of ways, Kemeny in his public advocacy of nuclear power does not fit the image of the objective, trustworthy expert: he addresses only some of the issues and seldom replies to anti-nuclear arguments; he presents large amounts of irrelevant material; he is subject to inaccuracy, and on occasion fails to acknowledge his mistakes; he continually denigrates opponents; he speaks from a position representing a potential conflict of interest; and his expertise is mostly irrelevant to the issues, or of doubtful quality."
To which Kemeny responded (as only Kemeny could): "On a recent official visit to Britain, my former colleagues, who know my background and are familiar with my technical expertise and publications, expressed incredulity at the offensive, incorrect, and defamatory nature of the article and expressed amazement that I have not taken legal action."
Later he wrote: "My legal counsel in the United Kingdom and Australia have now advised me that the article "The Naked Experts" ... is scurillous, dishonest and defamatory. The evidence can well be supported by expert witness in both countries and a five figure sum for damages has been proposed."
Kemeny demanded an apology but did not get one and he did not pursue his legal threats. Kemeny's demand for all copies of that issue of The Ecologist magazine to be sent to him was not met
Kemeny sometimes offers a conspiracy theory (much the same conspiracy theory as Ian Plimer's - two men of the same generation and social cohort):
"Chernobyl's reassessed medical and societal impacts show that risks as perceived through the human psyche can only be understood by those who undertake a measure of scientific enquiry and then exercise informed realism. Without this, fear and emotional blackmail can govern our lives. And there are some who are willing to use the incitement of fear to achieve control over the lives of individuals, communities and even nations to achieve socio-political goals."
Kemeny believes the anti-nuclear movement is "supported by immense funds from affluent rightwing interests" and that it should be "recognised for what it is - anti-working class activism aimed at maintaining the last "status quo" for a fortunate minority".
Where he gets such barking mad ideas from is anyone's guess. Lyndon LaRouche makes similar comments, e.g. "The 'anti-blue collar,' 'anti-industrial,' 'anti-nuclear power,' and 'green' traits of that increasingly influential, 'white-collar baby-boomer' portion of the population, have exerted an extraordinary influence ..."
And another conspiratorial line from Kemeny: "Radical green activism and global terrorism can form dangerous, even deadly, alliances. The 'coercive utopianism' of radical greens, their avid desire for media publicity and their hidden socio-political agendas can produce societal outcomes that are sometimes violent and ugly." And another from LaRouche: "This utterly depraved, dionysian cult-formation found its echoed, more violent expression in late 1980s Germany, where the anti-nuclear, fascist rioting reached near to the level of outright civil war by the German "cousins" of the Weathermen."
On other occasions it is not "affluent rightwing interests" but the "political left" which Kemeny blames: "Solutions to Australia's greenhouse gas emission problems are not to be found in the strident rhetoric and opportunistic pseudo-science, of the political left."
Clive Hamilton's comments about Ian Plimer also seem apt for Kemeny: "The emergence of the environment and peace movements in the 1970s challenged the benefits of nuclear technology, the power of the military-industrial complex and the claims of science to neutrality and benevolence. ... The criticism of the hitherto unquestioned place of science and technology destabilised the power and privilege of the scientific elite."
Thus Kemeny attacks activists who "use pseudo-science to create an environment of terror and distrust of all legitimate authority."
And another appeal to cede authority to experts: "Among the enormous crowds who observe international sporting contests, there are always those who think they can change the course or even the rules of a game by simply shouting or demonstrating from the grandstand. But desirable conduct on the field should always be in the hands of the expert umpires and linesmen."
For nuclear scientists such as Kemeny it wasn't just their beliefs under challenge - there were major practical effects. Kemeny writes: "Sadly, by the mid-1980s atomic energy had dropped out of the agenda of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and projects with an engineering or energy technology orientation were terminated. Australia began to face a huge policy vacuum in respect of peaceful nuclear energy. This is still being experienced today. The nation's only School of Nuclear Engineering was disestablished. Radical green political activism, enjoying a fruitful alliance with the media and using the potent psychology of fear of radiation and pseudo-scientific risk analysis, had successfully established a powerful anti-nuclear ethos within the Australia community."
Hence a cohort of disgruntled, elderly, and sometimes conspiratorial nuclear scientists. (Keith Alder's book title says it all: 'Australia's Uranium Opportunities: How Her Scientists and Engineers Tried to Bring Her into the Nuclear Age but were Stymied by Politics'.)
Kemeny was caught up in the failed Nu-Tec investment scheme (as a victim according to the ABC - and I'm not suggesting otherwise). This was the subject of a 2-part special on ABC TV's 7:30 Report in March 2005. ABC reporter Emma Alberici concluded: "The truth, however, was that Nu-Tec was no tech. Its technology didn't exist. Just a few underdeveloped ideas rattling around Professor Kemeny's mind. Some rudimentary paper work and a sales pitch aimed at novice investors."
Lastly, a response by UNSW academic Mark Diesendorf to one of Kemeny's recent opinion pieces is posted at:
www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/need-energy-forget-nuclear...