Catherine M. Hammack

Energy Law 19 November 2013

ENERGY LAW FROM A BIOETHICS PERSPECTIVE:

WHAT IT IS, HOW IT WORKS, AND WHY IT MATTERS

WHAT IS IT?• Technology • Law• Bioethics

• Can we? • May we? • Should we?

WHAT IS IT?• “[B]ioethics is concerned with a specific area of human conduct

concerning the animate . . . and inanimate . . . natural world against the background of . . . medicine, biology, biochemistry, and biophysics.”

• Major sub-disciplines:

• Medical ethics

• Animal ethics

• Environmental ethics

HOW DOES IT WORK?• General approaches:

• Deontology

• Consequentialism

• Utilitarianism

• Virtue ethics

• Casuistry

• Principlism

HOW DOES IT WORK?• Principlism

• Tom Beauchamp and James Childress (1978) (latest ed. 2009)

• “[T]he most prevalent, authoritative, and widely used bioethical approaches”

• Four universal principles:

• Autonomy

• Beneficence

• Non-Maleficence

• Justice

HOW DOES IT WORK?• Principlism

• Autonomy

• The ability and freedom to govern oneself

• Acting

• With intent and understanding

• Without external coercion or control

• Of

• Individuals

• Communities, groups

HOW DOES IT WORK?• Principlism

• Beneficence

• Good; best interest

• Defining “good”, “best”

• Ethical duty

HOW DOES IT WORK?• Principlism

• Non-Maleficence

• “Above all, do no harm” (Hippocratic maxim)

• Defining “harm”

• ≠ beneficence

• Generally more important than beneficence

• Ethical duty and right

• Beneficence is merely a duty; No right of beneficence

HOW DOES IT WORK?• Principlism

• Justice

• ≈ fairness

• ≠ equality

• For

• Individual

• Communities, groups

• Distribution / exhaustion of limited resources

HOW DOES IT WORK?Autonomy Beneficence Non-

Maleficence Justice

Domestic Oil

Tragedy of the

Commons & unitization

Energy security

-Exxon Valdez

-Deepwater Horizon -Water quality

-Air quality (hydrocarbons, flaring natural

gas)

Rule of Capture& the

Correlative Rights

doctrine

HOW DOES IT WORK?Autonomy Beneficence Non-

Maleficence Justice

Hydro

Fishers and farmers

(Reuniting a River)

-Reduce GHG

emissions-Cheaper to

operate -Flood control,

irrigation

-Adverse effects on

wildlife, river systems

-Increased CO2 from cement

-Increased CH4 from

degenerating vegetation

Distributing limited

resource to competing interests

(Reuniting a River)

ETHICAL ENERGY• Nuclear energy

• Can we?

• May we?

• Should we?

“ETHICAL” ENERGY• "Some people say using nuclear power to generate electricity is a good idea because

uranium fuel is available in North America and nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. Other people say using nuclear power is a bad idea because of the risk of accident and the fact there is still no long-term solution for nuclear waste disposal. What do you think -- is using nuclear power to generate electricity mostly a good idea or mostly a bad idea?”

Total

Good idea 36%

Bad idea 58%

Don’t know 6%

“ETHICAL” ENERGY

“ETHICAL” ENERGY

ETHICAL ENERGY

Autonomy Beneficence Non-Maleficence Justice

NuclearEnergy

AUTONOMY• United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Atomic Energy Act of 1954

• Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970

• Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978

• Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

• Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980

• Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

• Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985

BENEFICENCE• “Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment —

including air, land, water, and wildlife — of any energy source. It produces no harmful greenhouse gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources.”

BENEFICENCE• “Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment —

including air, land, water, and wildlife — of any energy source. It produces no harmful greenhouse gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources.”

NON-MALEFICENCE• Extraction

• Miners: higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases

• 1,000 tons of uranium fuel = ~100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and ~1 million gallons of radioactive liquid waste containing arsenic and other metals

NON-MALEFICENCE• Production

• Nuclear power plants emitting radiation

• Residents

• Employees

• “[A] small portion of radioactivity must be released from reactors. This radioactivity enters the human body through breathing and the food chain, as gases and tiny metal particles. They kill and injure healthy cells, leading to cancer, and are especially harmful to the fetus, infant, and child . . . .”

NON-MALEFICENCE• Disposal

• High-level radioactive waste: 2,000 metric tons

• Low-level radioactive waste: 12 million cubic feet

• “More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no permanent repository.”

• “This waste is actually a cocktail of chemicals such as Cesium-137, Iodine-129, Strontium-90, and Plutonium-239, each radioactive and cancer-causing.”

• Waste remains dangerous for thousands of years!

NON-MALEFICENCE• Failure

• 3 out of 14,500

• Three Mile Island (1979)

• Chernobyl (1986)

• Fukushima (2011)

• 2 out of 3: 0 deaths

• 1 out of 5: >1,000 deaths

• 1 out of 100,000: >50,000 deaths

• Average meltdown: ~400 deaths

NON-MALEFICENCE• 250: Release limit for nuclear power

plant over 1 year

• 400: Dose per person from food

• 4,000: mammogram

• 10,000: CT scan

• 36,000: Smoke 1.5 packs of cigarettes per day for 1 year

JUSTICE• Doing less harm

• Nuclear is . . .

• 5x safer than oil

• 10x safer than gas

• 100x safer than hydro-electric dams*

• 1 X-ray = living near nuclear plant for 2,000 years

• 1 round-trip flight from NY to LA = living next door to a nuclear plant for 1 year

• Air pollution from coal burning (10,000 deaths per year) = 25 melt-downs each year

JUSTICE• “Can we continue to despoil our environment with long-lived

radioactive materials that are scattered to the wind and embedded in our precious soil, randomly exposing large populations, and foisting health impacts on unsuspecting future generations who have no choice in this matter?”

JUSTICE• Is it just to continue use nuclear energy?

• Is it just not to?