Moral judgements are not easy to make in an age of technological complexity particularly if it is difficult to know all the facts accurately. However, it is possible to state the ethical considerations underlying the global energy problem and to point to possible solutions in the short, medium and long term. The nuclear option is considered in some detail and it is concluded that the procedures of deciding risks should be based on dialogue and mutual education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EckholmE. P., The Other Energy Crisis: Firewood, World watch Paper I, p. 7 (1979).
2.
MedvedevA., Nuclear Disaster in the Urals, London (1979).
3.
LeachG., et al., A Low Energy Strategy for the UK, IIED p. 12 (1979).
4.
R. Stobaugh and D, Yergin, Energy Futures, p. 136. New York (1979).
5.
AbrechtP. Ed., Faith and Science in an Unjust World, WCC, Vol. 2, p. 103(1980).
6.
HoyleF., Energy or Extinction?, p. 33, London (1977), based on UK Dept. Energy data June 1966. Somewhat different scenarios are found in the Dept. of Energy's Energy Paper No. 39, HMSO, Dec. 1979.
7.
For the most recent assessment of uranium reserves, see ATOM, p. 114 (April1980).
8.
Ref. 5, p. 89.
9.
Ref. 5, p. 96.
10.
Social Trends No. 10, p. 180 (1980).
11.
MontefioreH. and GoslingD. Eds., Nuclear Crisis, p. 50; Prism Press, (1977), Mr F. R, Farmer, in evidence submitted on behalf of UKAEA to a public enquiry held by 8CC.
12.
Faith and Science in an Unjust Society, Vol. 1, p. 257.
13.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 6th Report, p. 80, HMSO, 1976 (Cmnd. 6618).
14.
The precise figures will be found in ATOM No, 282 (April1980).
15.
MontefioreH. Ed., Changing Directions, The Report of the Independent Commission on Transport, p. 175, Coronet Press, (1964).
