Skip to main content

Energy decisions within an applied ethics framework: an analysis of five recent controversies

Abstract

Everywhere in the world, and in every period of human history, it has been common for energy decisions to be made in an ethically haphazard manner. With growing population pressure and increasing demand for energy, this approach is no longer viable. We believe that decision makers must include ethical considerations in energy decisions more routinely and systematically. To this end, we propose an applied ethics framework that accommodates principles from three classical ethical theories—virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism, and two Native American ethics (Lakota and Navajo)—all considered from the perspectives of the impacted communities. We illustrate this framework by evaluating five recent energy decisions: the Dakota Access Pipeline, the Navajo Nation’s possible transition from coal to solar, hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania, uranium mining in Virginia, and the construction of the Xiaolangdi Dam in China. An applied ethics framework is preferable to existing ethical analyses because it can serve to sharpen arguments for (un)ethical decisions and action. Rather than treat ethical reasoning as a matter of opinion, we argue that applying ethical principles in a universal and standardized way adds rigor to energy sector decisions by presenting a position available for objective scrutiny. Because our framework identifies which aspects of a targeted action (if any) must adjust to improve ethical merit, it can serve as a practical tool for improving decision-making as we enter a new era of energy transitions.

Introduction

The majority of global greenhouse gas emissions arise from energy conversion and consumption [1]. Transitioning towards carbon-free and affordable energy resources will be among the most important decisions we will make to protect human habitability on Earth [2]. Energy decisions have many ethical dimensions, including significant effects for members of present and future generations. In some cases, energy decisions can determine who lives and dies, cause irreversible changes to the planet, or lock societies into harmful infrastructures or socio-economic arrangements that perpetuate for centuries. Therefore, these decisions should not be made without regard to ethics. In response to recognizing the ethical dimensions of energy decisions, a growing number of energy scientists and scholars have called for greater attention to ethics in energy research [3, 4], ethics training for energy workers, and a form of “Hippocratic Oaths” for energy decision makers to “do no harm” [5]. While some researchers have responded to these calls with a set of “energy justice” principles [6], we propose principles of energy ethics to serve as a practical guide for energy decision-making.Footnote 1 This alternative approach is intended to complement, not supplant, other normative approaches to energy ethics [8].

This short communication introduces a framework for making ethical energy decisions in real-world scenarios, illustrating how policy makers and others can use it. The proposed framework (Table 1) is designed to be flexible and accommodate principles from multiple ethical perspectives (virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism, Lakota Sioux, and Navajo) simultaneously. Each principle is described in Table 1. To be clear from the outset, we remain neutral on the correctness or truth of any particular ethical theory or principle. Instead, our main goal is pragmatic. The framework is intended to contribute meaningfully to the growing and vibrant field of energy ethics by employing a plurality of well-established and philosophically defensible ethical principles that illuminate our obligations to others, providing a set of high-level guidelines for making practical decisions.Footnote 2

Table 1 Applied ethics framework

Methods

Next, we describe example cases in Table 2. We have selected five recent and high-profile energy decisions as examples: the Dakota Access Pipeline [19], the Navajo Nation’s transition away from coal and possibly to solar [20], hydraulic fracturing in Washington County, PA [21], uranium mining in Virginia [22], and the construction of the Xiaolangdi Dam in Jiyuan, Henan Province, China [23].

Table 2 Energy ethics cases

Each of the foregoing cases was controversial and had profound social, ecological, and economic implications for communities beyond the decision makers. The cases span a variety of cultures, countries, and combinations of social actors. They were selected to show a variety of positions in favor of or against the primary controversial action. Collectively, these cases begin to capture the diverse dimensions and complexity of current global energy transitions. These transitions often involve multiple decisions with unique nuances. At the broadest level, it remains uncertain which fuel(s) will be “best,” both practically (in terms of technology and economics) and ethically. There is no consensus on the best single energy resource or technology. For instance, we continue to combust oil and produce avoidable emissions, while its other uses are largely emission-free, such as lubrication, hydraulics, and making other materials such as polyesters and plastics (which are also controversial in terms of waste management and extraction). Solar energy is a model renewable source, but producing photovoltaic panels involves mining and the use of potentially toxic chemicals which are difficult to recycle. Natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels but still creates significant emissions. Nuclear energy generation does not emit carbon but threatens radioactivity events with a high human cost and involves difficult waste management. Hydropower has been a staple renewable energy useful as a baseline power supply, but it displaces populations of humans or non-humans. Beyond these more noticeable concerns, there is a plethora of other ethical worries for each of the selected cases, in terms of their intertwined human, cultural, and ecological dimensions. Without a standardized method for conducting ethical evaluations, these controversies will endure. The primary motivation for proposing our framework and constructing ethical arguments is to transparently establish the reasoning that justifies (or condemns) an action.

With the ethical principles and details of our cases established, we can apply our framework to the cases in Table 3, below. For the sake of simplicity and exposition, we ignore the option of applying multiple principles to individual cases, simultaneously. Instead, we limit our analysis to a single ethical principle for each case.

Table 3 Five example applicationsa

Each example in Table 3 consists of three components: (1) details of the case, including the relevant decisions (or actions) under consideration; (2) the principles and terminology of the ethical theory being applied; and (3) a verdict in favor of (or in opposition to) the targeted action.Footnote 3 Our framework and modeled case analyses are intended to serve as a template for others, especially energy decision makers and researchers in the field, to conduct their own ethical analyses of geographically and culturally diverse energy decisions. Moreover, we hope that our framework can serve to organize and systematize the literature on energy ethics to establish a new research agenda that involves new applications (i.e., other controversial energy decisions) of our framework.

Although we evaluate each case from the perspective of one ethical principle, a more thorough analysis would evaluate each case with multiple principles in the framework since any principle can create an ethical objection and thereby require some response to maintain ethical integrity. For practical purposes, it seems reasonable to suppose that a targeted decision or action judged to be ethical by multiple principles simultaneously will provide stronger evidence for believing that the decision or action is ethical compared to an action that is only judged to be ethical when applying a single principle.

Discussion

A growing chorus of energy researchers has called for infusing ethics into “real-world” energy decisions. Because the energy sector is a major source of the greenhouse gases that bring about rising temperatures, we should encourage energy researchers to scrutinize the ethical merit of many energy decisions, such as the paradigmatic cases we evaluated. Overall, we believe that taking energy ethics for granted during the Anthropocene would be a grave mistake.

While other scholars have proposed disparate methods of applying ethics to energy decisions, there is still no agreement on the best way to proceed. Scholars using the term “energy ethics” do not always integrate well-established ethical principles into their research, making their adoption of the term problematic and perhaps misleading. Although we do not expect our approach to instantly forge a consensus, our objective has been to advance the field of energy ethics. We have proposed to conceive of energy ethics as applied ethics, rather than as energy justice, descriptive ethics, or metaethics, as found in the literature. An applied ethics framework can serve to scrutinize future energy decisions with various ethical principles and prioritize the perspectives of those most affected by the decision. This short communication simply provided a sample of this approach, which we hope will galvanize the conversations on energy ethics as applied ethics, which could eventually burgeon into a thriving interdisciplinary field of research.

Conclusion

Energy ethics as applied ethics highlights ethical problems that deserve the attention of energy decision makers. Our framework allows crude but effective ethical prescriptions in concrete cases that may be culturally sensitive. Moreover, our framework offers a shared language and rules so that more attention can be directed to the decision at hand. Promoting an operational, solutions-oriented approach to ethical analysis entails going beyond merely identifying problematic situations to proposing solutions. With energy ethics as applied ethics, decision makers possess a conceptual tool to analyze contentious energy projects. Although there may be no decisive way to determine which ethical principle or set of principles that practitioners should select for evaluating energy decisions and actions, a general two-step recommendation might consist of the following:

  1. 1.

    The local ethical perspective should be prioritized and used as the first evaluative lens.

  2. 2.

    The practitioner or decision maker must judge the ethically relevant aspects of the decision at hand and choose the most plausible ethical principle(s) to employ.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. 1.

    While justice, ethics, and law are sometimes conflated, these concepts are separate and distinct. For example, what is just need not be ethical and vice versa. We do not have the space here for a complete analysis of this conceptual issue, but interested readers can find further details online [7].

  2. 2.

    We reasonably assume that, other things being equal, energy decision makers wish to make ethical decisions.

  3. 3.

    To be clear, decision makers who employ this framework for evaluating the ethical merit of energy decisions make value judgements. Whether implicit or explicit, one should expect that a policy maker’s personal values, interests, and beliefs will influence their ethical analysis [8].

References

  1. 1.

    CAIT Climate Data Explorer. https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.

  2. 2.

    Sherwood SC, Huber M (2010) An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress. P Natl Acad Sci USA 107(21):9552-9555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913352107

  3. 3.

    Miller CA (2014) The ethics of energy transition. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology. IEEE Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology. Chicago, IL. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETHICS.2014.6893445

  4. 4.

    Sovacool BK (2014) Diversity: energy studies need social science. Nat 511(7511):529. https://doi.org/10.1038/511529a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Probert SD (1976) Energy engineering: ethics of an emerging profession. Appl Energy 2(3):217-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(76)90026-X

  6. 6.

    Sovacool BK, Heffron RJ, McCauley D, Goldthau A (2016) Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nat Energy 1(5):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.24

  7. 7.

    Miller D (2017) Justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/justice/

  8. 8.

    Frigo G (2018) The energy ethic and strong sustainability: outlining key principles for a moral compass. In: Bonnedahl K, Heikkurinen P, (eds) Strongly sustainable societies. Routledge.

  9. 9.

    Aristotle (1984) Nicomachean ethics. In: Barnes J (ed) The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kant I (1964) Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (1785). Paton, HJ (trans). Harper and Row, New York.

  11. 11.

    Bentham J (2005) Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (1789). In: Bowring J (ed) The works of Jeremy Bentham. Adamant Media Corporation, Chestnut Hill, MA

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Mill JS (1991) Utilitarianism. In: Robson JM (ed) Collected works of John Stuart Mill. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Byerly R (2015) Sitting in the hoop of the people: linking Lakota values and business ethics. J Relig Bus Ethics 3(1):1–18

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Caldwell C (2017) Lakota virtues and leadership principles: insights and applications for ethical leaders. J Manag Dev 36(3):309-318. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2016-0038

  15. 15.

    Craig RH (1999) Institutionalized relationality: a Native American perspective on law, justice and community (kinship relations, collective rights, and mutual responsibilities within Lakota and Dakota tribal society). Annu Soc Christ Ethics 19:285–309

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Verbos AK, Gladstone JS, Kennedy DM (2011) Native American values and management education: envisioning an inclusive virtuous circle. J Manag Educ 35(1):10–26

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Vecsey C (2015) Navajo morals and myths, ethics and ethicists. J Relig Ethics 43(1):78–121

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Yazzie R (1994) Life comes from it: Navajo justice concepts. N. M. Law Rev 24:175–190

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    NYC stands with Standing Rock collective. (2016) #StandingRockSyllabus. https://nycstandswithstandingrock.wordpress.com/standingrocksyllabus/.

  20. 20.

    Randazzo R (2017, February 13) Utilities vote to close Navajo coal plant at end of 2019. The Arizona Republic. http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2017/02/13/utilities-vote-close-navajo-generating-stationcoal-plant-2019/97866668/

  21. 21.

    Mall A (2014, February 28) Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination. Natural Resources Defense Council. www.nrdc.org

  22. 22.

    Schneider GS, Barnes R (2018, November 4) Supreme Court to consider Virginia uranium case that divides a rural county. The Washington Post: Virginia Politics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/supreme-court-to-consider-virginia-uranium-case-that-divides-a-rural-county/2018/11/03/2a4e06f8-dea6-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2125c4a56f40

  23. 23.

    Verdict Media (2019) Xiaolangdi hydroelectric power plant. https://www.power-technology.com/projects/xiaolangdi/

  24. 24.

    Hay M (2018) A new solar facility creates jobs and greater energy independence for the Navajo Nation. Make Change, Aspiration Partners, Inc. https://www.makechange.aspiration.com/articles/new-solar-facility-creates-jobs-and-greater-energy-independence-for-navajo-nation

  25. 25.

    Powell DE (2015) The rainbow is our sovereignty: rethinking the politics of energy on the Navajo Nation. J Political Ecol 22:53-78. https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21078

  26. 26.

    Kraut R (2018) Aristotle’s ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta EN (ed). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/aristotle-ethics/

  27. 27.

    Schneider GS, Barnes R (2018, November 4) Supreme Court to consider Virginia uranium case that divides a rural county. The Washington Post: Virginia Politics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/supreme-court-to-consider-virginia-uranium-case-that-divides-a-rural-county/2018/11/03/2a4e06f8-dea6-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?noredirect=on

  28. 28.

    Zhao T, Richards K, Xu H, Meng H (2012) Interactions between dam-regulated river flow and riparian groundwater: a case study from the Yellow River, China. Hydrol Process 26(10):1552-1560. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8260

  29. 29.

    Webber M, McDonald B (2004) Involuntary resettlement, production and income: evidence from Xiaolangdi, PRC. World Dev 32(4), 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.10.010

  30. 30.

    Wu Z, Wu Z, Penning M, Zeng W, Li S, Chappell N (2016) Relocation and social support among older adults in rural china. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 71(6):1108-1119. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu187

  31. 31.

    Abuodha JOZ (2002) Environmental impact assessment of the proposed titanium mining project in Kwale District, Kenya. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 20:199–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03608860290051895

  32. 32.

    Kong D, Miao C, Wu J, Borthwick A, Duan G, Zhang Q (2017) Environmental impact assessments of the Xiaolangdi Reservoir on the most hyperconcentrated laden river, Yellow River, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(5):4337-4351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7975-4

  33. 33.

    Hong P, Singh S, Ramic J (2009) Development-induced impoverishment among involuntarily displaced populations. J Comp Soc Welf 25(3):221-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486830903189972

  34. 34.

    Wilmsen B, Webber M (2015) What can we learn from the practice of development-forced displacement and resettlement for organised resettlements in response to climate change? Geoforum 58:76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.016

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the constructive feedback provided by two anonymous reviewers and an editor of this journal.

Funding

CTD received funding support from ASU LightWorks for this research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JB designed the research and conducted primary data analysis for the case studies. GF, SB, CTD, and MP collaborated with JB to develop the framework. All authors edited and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Tyler DesRoches.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bethem, J., Frigo, G., Biswas, S. et al. Energy decisions within an applied ethics framework: an analysis of five recent controversies. Energ Sustain Soc 10, 29 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-020-00261-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Energy
  • Energy transitions
  • Applied energy ethics
  • Philosophy