Ethics of Renewable Energy

Jennifer Taylor
York University
May 30, 2008
Submitted to: World Wind Energy Conference

2
Abstract
The scope, severity, and life cycles of the impacts of the conventional energy
system, most notably human-induced climate change and the accumulation of toxic
nuclear waste, have pointed to the need for unprecedented ethical consideration of the
effect of human action in the present and far-distant future. Growing awareness of the
need for sustainable energy sources has propelled renewable energy technologies into
the mainstream to a greater extent than ever before, due to their ability to provide an
alternative energy path characterized by inexhaustible resources, low impact technology,
decreased potential for global conflict, and local ownership. While the renewable energy
movement of the 1960s and 1970s was predicated on counter-culture values (rejection of
corporate and state values, greater stewardship of the earth and communal living),
renewable energy technologies are now increasingly deployed within the same scientific,
technological, and capitalist power structure that maintains the current fossil fuel and
nuclear energy hegemonies. This reveals the need for greater ethical consideration of
renewable energies in terms of how they are and ought to be developed. It requires a
general agreement on what constitutes a truly alternative energy path, and on whose
terms this path should be determined.
Introduction
All previous ethics were developed at a time when the earth was perceived as
abundant and immutable. Humanitys ability to use technology to provide for itself and
carve out its dominion in the form of cities, left nature as a whole unchanged and its
generative powers undiminished (Jonas 1974). The employment of energy was equally
limited to the simple use of fire for cooking and warmth. Because humanitys sphere of
influence was recognized as small and inconstant, nature was not considered an object of
human responsibility, intelligence, not ethics, applied to it. As a result, traditional ethics,
ranging from Aristotelian to Kantian, were designed to serve as a guide for intra-human
conduct, in other words were anthropocentric, and confined to an immediate setting
(Jonas 1974).
Undeniably, human action in its various forms has de facto changed, and modern
energy use has evolved to propel a massive technological drive that has had severe
consequences for the whole of the biosphere. Two of the most glaring examples of this

3
new found power are climate change and the proliferation of toxic nuclear waste, both of
which will have repercussions that extend far into the future, possibly into the tens of
millennia, and for more than just humanity (Timmerman 2003). Because the earth has
revealed a critical vulnerability to conventional energy deployment, and human action in
general, a whole new dimension of ethical relevance has been opened in the form of
responsibility unparalleled in scope (Jonas 1982). Thus in addition to the immediate and
human-related problems created by the current energy system, ethics must now address
the global condition of human life and the far-off future, including threats to the
continued existence of the human race and other species (Jonas 1974).
Sustainability has emerged as an ethic, or code of conduct, aimed at lessening
humanitys ecological footprint and fostering greater intragenerational and
intergenerational equity. Critical problems arising from the use of fossil fuel and nuclear
energy sources point to the need for new energy technology deployment based on
sustainable principles. Energy derived from natural processes that are replenished
constantly, or renewable energy, has gained widespread recognition as a means of solving
some of the current problems associated with conventional energy, including: energy
poverty, inequitable distribution of resources, inequitable distribution of risks and
benefits, and military conflict. For renewables to significantly expand their installed
capacity, and be free of the negative aspects associated with conventional energy,
requires consideration of the power structure underlying such a transition and whether it
will contribute to sustainability.

4
1. Past versus Present Renewable Energy Movements
Renewable energy emerged in the 1970s as a means of creating a sustainable
energy future characterized by what Amory Lovins (1977) dubbed the soft energy path.
The soft path was premised on five foundations: energy flows rather than stocks; diverse,
small, and specifically applied sources; flexible technology; output matched to end uses;
and energy quality matched to end-use needs. Based on these foundations, the soft path
promised greater democracy, flexibility, efficiency of energy and capital, less ecological
degradation, and fewer military conflicts. Glover (2006) argues that originally the
transformation of the power system was as much a social initiative as it was technical,
and central to the social goal was that renewable energy conveyed autonomy to its users:
Basically its users would be able to understand and control their own systems, fix
and maintain them using basic skills, create no pollution and impinge on no
on else, live free of monthly utility bills and high energy costs, and erode support
for the state- and corporate-managed energy system (p.251).
Early experimentation with renewable energy technologies took place outside
state and corporate spheres and was conducted in personal, communal, and academic
contexts (Glover 2006). The movement began, therefore, as a subculture in which
technological innovations were applied to isolated, small, and privately or cooperatively
owned systems with the aim of meeting modest energy needs (Abramsky 2006). At that
time, renewable technologies were not considered a means of direct substitution for
conventional sources or designed to power mass consumption lifestyles. Rather they were
perceived as a means of living out values counter to mainstream culture in the form of
freedom from reliance on the established power system.
Skyrocketing oil prices as a result of the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s
galvanized a surge of interest in renewable technologies, particularly in the United States.

5
Concurrently, advocates such as Lovins sought to advance the soft path by challenging
the conventional system on its own terms, arguing that renewables were cheaper, safer,
and an altogether more sensible energy choice, and by assuring that such a transition
would not threaten modern social institutions (Glover 2006). By offering a renewable
future conducive to meeting insatiable middle-class energy demands, and comparing the
economics of conventional and renewable sources based on the price of production rather
than cost of energy services, renewable energy advocates tacitly acknowledged the
societal goals they had initially challenged. (Matson & Carasso 1999; Glover 2006). As a
result, corporate and government-brokered renewable energy deployment began in
earnest.
Previously, renewable technologies employed few people and the bulk of
production was largely motivated by environmental and ethical concerns, rather than pure
profit. Cooperatives, such as those in Denmark and Germany, were historically favoured
over companies due to their provision of good working conditions and wages (Scheer
2007; Abramsky 2006). Because it was a comparatively small sector, various stakeholder
interests were able to find common ground, making alliances possible between producers
and consumers, small and large producers, small and large consumers, ecological
concerns and profit motives, workers and employers, grid connection and stand alone,
commercial and non-commercial energy use (Abramsky 2006). While this is still true to
some extent, tensions between these stakeholders are increasing.
From 2002 to 2006, global renewable energy capacity of numerous technologies
grew at rates of 15-30 percent annually and rapid industrial expansion has resulted in
greater concentration within the industry due to corporate mergers, acquisitions, and joint

6
ventures (REN21 2007; Abramsky 2006). The same companies that produce nuclear and
fossil fuel power such as BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Areva, and Siemens have begun to buy
up renewable energy companies making it increasingly difficult for small companies,
dealing exclusively in renewables, to compete. As a result, renewable energy
technologies are being acquired and marketed by large corporations inherently opposed
to working towards the social goals associated with an energy transformation sought by
the first wave of counter-culture advocates.
2. Ethics in the Context of Ecology, Technology, and Capitalism
The Science of Ecology
Over time scientific and rational explanations of nature have come to override
metaphysical and experiential ones articulated by early environmentalists. As a
consequence, what was once a movement based on a passionate and subjective
experience of the natural world has increasingly become an objective elucidation of
public interest (Evernden 1993, p.9). The rise of pragmatic and utilitarian concern for
the earth has been greatly bolstered by the science of ecology, the branch of biology that
deals with the relations of organisms to one another and their environments. Ecology has
provided environmentalists with the necessary expertise, predominantly in the form of a
quantitative tool, to challenge their opponents by demonstrating the prudence and
economy of wisely managing natural resources (Evernden 1993). This strategy is
consistent with that of the renewable energy movement discussed in the previous section.
Undoubtedly, better understanding of the intricate relations between living things
and their habitats contributes positively to knowledge of the web of life and the interrelatedness of all things. Indeed there is a strong ecological argument for a transition to

7
renewables; they produce few greenhouse gas emissions, water and air pollutants, and
wastes, and thereby disrupt ecosystems to a much lesser extent than do oil, coal, and
nuclear energy generation (Scheer 2007). Yet, it is crucial to remember that it has been
through the rational lens of scientific inquiry that humans have displaced themselves
from a natural world perceived and treated as a conglomerate of resources destined for
exploitation. Ecological conservation provides a means of regulating this exploitation in
order to ensure the health and availability of natural resources for generations of people
to come. Intergenerational equity and conservation in the context of anthropocentric
utilitarianism, therefore, have served as foundational ethics to ecology and resource
management.
In effect, this is very similar to ethics underlying the industrialist paradigm. Both
the environmentalist and industrialist rely heavily on the expediency of nature but
disagree on its best utility (Evernden 1993). According to Worster (1994), the best that
might be hoped for from the science of ecology, at present, isto preserve the biotic
capital while maximizing the income (p. 315). In other words, through applied ecology,
the social goal of maximizing the utilization of the earths resources is pursued for the
benefit of humans alone.
The Technological Society
Eminent sociologist and philosopher Jacques Ellul (1964) argued that in order for
humans to achieve their desired ends, they typically employ technical means, which are
manifestly the most efficient, particularly in the realms of science, politics, and
economics. Ethics as a means competes with technique, which Ellul describes as more
than simply machine technology, but any complex of standardized means for attaining a

8
predetermined result. The employment of technique, therefore, necessitates behaviour
that is deliberate and rationalized. The technical mindset is increasingly evident in current
corporate efforts to deploy renewables, which are predicated on the concentration of
capital in the form of mergers and acquisitions.
As applications of renewable technologies increase in size, from small, residential
installations to large, industrial ones, government funds are increasingly required to
finance them. It is generally perceived that planning and providing for the energy
industry on the part of governments have been to provide cheap energy to the public,
when in fact they have been for the development and expansion other technological
enterprises (Franklin 1990). Even regulatory measures introduced by governments to
increase the installed capacity of renewables, such as the Standard Offer Program in
Ontario, reflect the governments technical rather than social goals by benefiting the
private sector to a greater degree than community power developers.
While innovations in technology obviously play a key role in increasing
renewable energy capacity, what many have failed to realize, and what scholars such as
Ursula Franklin (1990) and Langdon Winner (1986) have been pointed out for decades, is
that social patterns have and continue to determine technological development. Thus,
ownership, design, control, autonomy, and responsibility associated with renewables are
not a reflection of the technology, but of the complex web of social interactions or
patterns (Franklin 1990; Glover 2006). This suggests that the political and social settings
that have accommodated conventional energy will not foster a transition to renewable
energy future that challenges their norms, but will seek to mold it in the image of the
energy system that preceded it.

9
The Capitalist Mode of Production
Driven by technique, the capitalist mode of production has emerged as the
dominant ethos of western culture over the last two hundred years (Ellul 1964; White
2006). Value, under capitalism, is commensurable with the near term exclusively and
expressed only in monetary terms (Matson & Carasso 1999). Consequently, conventional
as well as renewable energy deployment is determined using models of economic
efficiency in a competitive market (Matson & Carasso 1999). The use of models such as
cost/benefit analyses effectively preclude qualitative dimensions of value from economic
decision-making with respect to energy resources, including: spiritual and cultural values,
aesthetics, peace, freedom, and intra- and inter-generational equity (Matson & Carasso
1999). This helps to explain why a significant share of renewable deployment is
unfolding with little consideration for anything but monetary gain.
Justice, under capitalism, seeks to preserve a social order and the legal "rights"
that constitute that order. It does not work from a notion of obedience to moral law,
conscience, or compassion (White 2006). The social and environmental problems arising
from conventional energy use can be traced to the preclusion of the non-quantifiable
values listed above and the judicial system that legalizes it. Thus, they should not be
considered exclusively scientific and technological problems but rather, to a large extent,
the product of existing global power relations and the world market (Abramsky 2006).
Like science and technology, utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the greatest
number constitutes the ethical rationale of the capitalist system, although in reality its
aim has not been realized. Inequality and injustice are not simply due to chance, but
rather to inequitable social, political, economic, financial and military relationships at the

10
global level (Abramsky 2006). These power relations, operating within a capitalist
framework, have each played a role in determining the conventional energy supply mix
and the distribution of its costs and risks.
It seems nave to imagine that another mode of producing goods and services will
supersede capitalism. Its absolute creativity, flexibility and capacity for self-correction
has resulted in the commodification of almost everything, even that originally conceived
as a revolt against it (Surin 2005; Porritt 2007). Renewable energy technologies provide a
good example of this. It is also nave to assume, however, that because capitalism has
emerged as the dominant system it is somehow natural or right. The free markets
champions cling to the belief that associated social losses are merely, capitalism
adjusting in its own favour the sliding scale of utilitarian benefit (White 2006, p. 32).
Porritt (2007), on the other hand, argues that the world we live in today is not
unplanned; its the way it is because thats the way political elites wanted it to be (p.xx).
This suggests that if the political elites over time have condoned conventional energy
production that is completely unethical, there is little doubt that in their hands,
renewables will be deployed in the same fashion.
3. Toward a Renewable Energy Ethic
Derived from the Greek word ethos, meaning custom of habit, ethics is the branch
of philosophy concerned with the evaluation of human conduct. Ethics can take the form
of issuing direct enjoinders of what to do and not to, defining principles for such
enjoinders, and establishing the ground of obligation for obeying such principles (Jonas
1974). Timmerman (2003) writes that there is no one ethical framework to which
everyone subscribes. This is true in that most ethics are closely tied to cultural values,

11
which vary throughout the world and are sometimes conflicting. Given the allinclusiveness of the climate change crisis and the potential for nuclear war, it is
undeniably clear that the world is experiencing a painful birth into a veritable global
community fraught with common challenges and concerns. Perhaps this is why Hans
Jonas (1984) is so vehement in his contention that an unprecedented universal ethics is
vital; one that encompasses humans duties to themselves, their distant posterity, and the
abundance of other life forms with whom they share the planet. He argues that an ethics
of nature must be attempted in order to bridge the chasm between scientifically
ascertainable is and morally binding ought (Jonas 1984).
In many ways, the concept of sustainability embodies this bridge and notion of
responsibility towards present and future generations as well as the natural world. In
theory, sustainability has been widely embraced by countless governments, organizations,
and businesses as a means of balancing social, economic, and environmental values over
time. Gibson (2006), however, stresses that sustainability is not about balancing but
rather, multiplying reinforcing gains. Working towards greater sustainability, therefore,
does not merely entail the minimization of negative social, economic and environmental
impacts, but the reversal of two negative trends: the growing gap between rich and poor
and the degradation of ecological systems (Gibson 2006).
The potential for renewables to contribute to sustainability is currently being
shaken by growing awareness of some of the dire consequences of rapid, ill-considered
deployment. The production of biofuels, for example, is now irrefutably associated with
the current spike in global food prices, which is sparking widespread fear over famines
and malnutrition in impoverished countries (Oceransky 2007). Industrial labour unrest

12
has also begun to surface as the production of renewable energy technology globalizes
and migrates to parts of the world with low labour costs (Abramsky 2006). Furthermore,
renewable energy is no longer exempt from land related conflicts, with three Chinese
villagers shot to death in 2006 whilst protesting over a lack of compensation for land lost
to a wind power plant (Abramsky 2006).
These emerging problems will only intensify without a coherent ethical position
by which all renewable energy stakeholders stand. This position would include defining a
set of principles that address intergenerational equity, intragenerational equity, and the
intrinsic value of the biosphere and all that inhabit it. For renewable energy development
to encourage intergenerational equity requires that present options and actions most likely
to preserve or enhance opportunities and capabilities of future generations to live
sustainably are favoured (Gibson 2006). This necessitates a willingness to sacrifice
present advantages for future gains, and to honestly identify the potential consequences
of contemporary decisions. In the context of renewable energy, it would mean advocating
modest energy consumption levels and building social capital and democratic systems
characterized by diversity, accountability, and broad engagement (Gibson 2006).
Renewable energy deployment that fosters intragenerational equity requires that
sufficiency and effective choices for all are pursued in ways that reduce dangerous gaps
in opportunity, health, security, social recognition, political influence between the rich
and poor (Gibson 2006). It would also mean that socio-ecological benefits and risks of
renewable energy are not concentrated in rich and poor countries respectively. For this to
happen, there needs to be an emphasis on less-material- and energy-intensive approaches
to personal satisfactions among the advantaged (Gibson 2006). Furthermore, for

13
renewables to benefit present and future generations there must be widespread acceptance
that the gains be incremental and favour local autonomy. This necessitates patience and
appreciation of small gains and willingness to participate in consensus-building.
Finally, renewable energy development must be centered on an ethic of respect
for life that transcends boundaries between humans, and between humans and nature.
This means advocating for social justice in terms of fair wages, working conditions and
human rights, as well as lobbying for policy changes that encourage and eliminate
barriers to individual and co-operatively-owned systems. It means exposing and
challenging the power structure that has maintained the conventional energy system at
unjustifiable costs to countless human lives and the well-being of the entire earth.
Forming an alliance with the powers that be is not an option for genuinely transforming
the energy landscape. While it may increase renewable energys overall share in the
global market, this success will be merely and literally an abstraction in the form of a
percentage. The benefits will also be numerical; X amount of carbon reduced, perhaps the
bare minimum to satisfy public opinion for a few months. Real change will result from
actual social changes that reverse trends that threaten and diminish human well-being,
and that of the natural world.
Conclusion
Science, technology, and capitalism do not provide the basis for ethical
deployment of renewable energy; that which fosters equity within and between
generations as well as maintains ecological integrity. While the current renewable
movement endeavors to apply technological and technical policy fixes to further its
cause, it has not attempted to disrupt modern societys penchant for mass consumption

14
whereby future life is mortgaged for present short-term advantages and self-created
needs. This is not to say that all current efforts to transform the energy economy are
without merit. On the contrary, they are among the most ambitious and admirable in
recent memory. The purpose of this article was to point out that ethics as a means should
play a greater role in determining the ends sought by renewable advocates. For renewable
energy to realize its potential as an effective vehicle for social change, it must be
deployed in such a way that enhances overall sustainability.

15

References
Abramsky, K. 2006. Accelerated and Far-Reaching Transition to Renewable Energies:
Why, What, How, By Whom? Building New Alliances, World Council for
Renewable Energy, http://www.wcre.de/en/index.php.
Elul, J. 1964. The Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books, 449 pp.
Evernden, N. 1993. The Natural Alien. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 172 pp.
Franklin, U. 1990. The Real World of Technology. Toronto: Anansi, 209 pp.
Gibson, R.B. 2006. Sustainablity assessment: basic components of a practical approach,
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal 24(3): 170-182.
Glover, L. 2006. From Love-Ins to Logos: Charting the Demise of Renewable Energy as
a Social Movement in Transforming Power: Energy, Environment and Society in
Conflict, eds. John Byrne, Noah Toly and Leigh Glover. New Jersey, Transaction
Publishers.
Jonas, H. 1974. Technology and Responsibility: Reflections on the New Task of Ethics
in Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man. PrenticeHall, pp. 3-20.
Jonas, H. 1982. Technology as a Subject for Ethics, Social Research, 49(4): 891-898.
Jonas, H. 1984. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the
Technological Age. The University of Chicago Press, 255 pp.
Lovins, A. 1977. Soft energy paths: Toward a durable peace, Cambridge, Mass.:
Ballinger Publishing Co., 231 pp.
Matson, R.J. and M. Carasso. 1999. Sustainability, energy technologies, and ethics.
Renewable Energy, 16: 1200-1203.
Oceransky, S. The need for a EU-eide Moratorium on Incentives for Agrofuels and
Imports of Agrofuels: Evaluating the Broader Impact of European Biofuel
Policy, World Renewable Energy Assembly, Bonn, Germany, November 20,
2007.
Scheer, H. 2007. Energy autonomy: the economic, social and technological case for
renewable energy, London: Earthscan, 320 pp.

16

Surin, K. 2005. Force in Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts, ed. Charles J. Stivale.
Montreal, McGill/Queens University Press.
Timmerman, P. Ethics of High Level Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal in Canada:
Background Paper, http://www.nwmo.ca/Default.aspx?DN=53834bd5-815e454d-8b6c-d12dabc652d8
White, C. 2006. The spirit of disobedience: an invitation to resistance, Harpers
Magazine, April.
Worster, D. 1994. Natures Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge, UK:
Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 503 pp.