Workshop Notes on Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education

Author: Pria D. Young

• Introduction
• Presentation 1: Clark Miller
• Presentation 2: Sharlissa Moore
• Presentation 3: Panel of Experts Question & Answer
  • Carl Mitcham
  • Frank Laird
  • Anu Ramaswami
• Session 4: Program Development
  • NIEES Workshop Development
  • Policy Workshop Development
  • Other Workshop Topics and Next Steps

Introduction

On September 12, 2011, a small interdisciplinary group of scientists, engineers, social scientists, and philosophers met at the Keck Building of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) to discuss first year activities and plans for years two and three of the Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education project.  Notes from the meeting below identify issues and comments that appear to deserve further consideration. They are not inclusive and do not represent a summary of the discussion; they do not present any consensus opinions from the participants, nor have they received external review. For a project overview, including its objectives and timeline, as well as energy ethics bibliographies and relevant case studies please visit the Energy Ethics page. 

Those who attended the meeting are referenced throughout this document. Their names and affiliations are listed below. The NAE hosted the meeting and the following staff attended[2]: 

• Rachelle Hollander (Co-Principal Investigator (PI), Director, Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society [CEES]);
• Nathan Kahl (Sr. Program Associate);
• Simil Raghavan (Associate Program Officer);
• Proctor Reid (Director, Program Office); and
• Pria Young (Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow).

The meeting was also attended by the following partners, invited experts, and interested parties:

• John Ahearne (Executive Director Emeritus, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society and Chair, CEES Advisory Group);
• Joe Herkert (Co-PI, Associate Professor, Arizona State University);
• Frank Laird (Associate Professor and Director, MA in International Studies, University of Denver);
• Clark Miller (Co-PI, Associate Professor, Arizona State University);
• Carl Mitcham (Hans Jonas Chair at the European Graduate School; Professor of Liberal Arts and International Studies, Colorado School of Mines);
• Chad Monfreda (Graduate Research Associate, Arizona State University);
• Kelly Moore (Program Officer, National Science Foundation);
• Sharlissa Moore (Graduate Student, Arizona State University);
• Lynette Osborne (Professorial Lecturer in Honors, The George Washington University);
• Eleonore Pauwels (Visiting Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars); and
• Anu Ramaswami (Professor of Environmental Engineering and Director, IGERT Program on Sustainable Urban Infrastructure, University of Colorado, Denver). 

 Back to Top

 Presentation 1:  Clark Miller

             In the first workshop presentation, Clark Miller provided some background for the project and then discussed what Arizona State University (ASU) has been doing in the first year. Miller posed the question of whether or not improved technology is always synonymous with progress and, more fundamentally, what does progress mean?  Progress is rarely universal and both distributive and procedural justice are important considerations. The fundamental task of this project is to examine these questions within the context of a system-wide energy transition surrounding the ways we use and produce energy. Thinking about an energy transition from an ethical and social vantage point raises three fundamental sets of issues: complexity of the system; constitution and the effects on organization of patterns of human activity; and democracy’s shortcomings in engaging the public in a decision dialogue. This first phase of project has been oriented around developing a broad framework for thinking about these issues using the classifications of distributive justice, procedural justice, social and environmental justice, and professional/organizational ethics. 

ASU has been examining these issues using a weekly faculty and graduate student seminar run by Miller and faculty colleagues Gary Dirks, and Kris Mayes, with over 20 participants. The seminars have focused on the following questions: how do you launch an energy transition; how do you manage an energy transition; and how do you assess outcomes of an energy transition (both focal and non-focal). In addition to the seminar, ASU also has several masters, PhD, and post PhD students working on research projects addressing these questions. As the project transitions into its second year, ASU has begun to build partnerships with large energy centers at ASU and with interdisciplinary master’s degree students. The focus of the project with respect to innovation in ethics education is to highlight both the problem-based approach to different ethics problems and also center-based research to situate the ethical analysis in an interdisciplinary education context. As a next step, ASU will pilot test and evaluate education strategies which can then be used as a basis for the National Institute on Energy, Ethics, and Society (NIESS). The NIEES is being designed as a week-long program in the third year of the project that will engage fifteen graduate students from energy research programs around the nation and prepare them for leadership in energy ethics and energy ethics education. 

              Anu Ramaswami sought clarification from Miller about his definition of an energy transition; specifically, she asked whether or not it included energy transitions in societies in the developing world. She suggested that this term is often used to describe   a transition up the energy ladder from cook stoves (biomass-burning) to liquid fuels to gaseous fuels and then electricity – not necessarily a transition to renewable energy as is implied in developed world energy transitions. This type of transition in developing world communities would significantly affect human health and development, i.e., transitions from biomass to gaseous fuels – i.e., to fossil fuel, can improve health. Miller clarified that this project defines an energy system transformation as one from fossil fuels to renewables with a dominant focus on the OECD countries.

  Back to Top

Presentation 2: Sharlissa Moore

             Sharlissa Moore presented her ongoing PhD research of siting practices, using the Ivanpah solar electric generating system as a case study. She first situated the presentation within the literature of the field and the concept of place. Current literature finds the pervasive idea of ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) to be a politically motivated and problematic way to think about the public’s reaction to siting. Scholars are increasingly looking outside of the NIMBY lens and thinking about how the public relates to place, as imbued with meaning by various actors, rather than merely space. Placemaking can be defined as a process by which the various stakeholders see the site based on value and try to convince others to see and value that site in that way to influence the siting decision (Thomas Gieryn. 2000. A Place for Space in Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology. 26: 463-96).   Moore then talked a bit about visual techniques and the use of technology. There has recently been a shift from using traditional photographic and artistic methods to video spots and even GIS mapping techniques. The visualization process is essential to answering questions like who gets to live where. This is demonstrated in the Ivanpah case. Videos and pictures disseminated by various stakeholders in this siting process for the Ivanpah solar site demonstrate the different visions and valuation of the site. There are three other dominant placemaking techniques in addition to the visual techniques that are demonstrated in the Ivanpah case: a legal defense of the place through things like the endangered species acts and rare plant regulations; a physical embodiment of the site through protest; and an associative approach to put the place within the larger context of the cultural landscape of the Native American culture. This case study reveals endemic problems with the broader siting process and the mismatch in scale of local public engagement and the broader government processes.

After Moore’s presentation, Rachelle Hollander raised the question of anticipatory governance. Moore notes that the current siting process is void of meaningful public engagement. The group at large discussed that the current role of scientists and engineers is limited to the private sphere. Visualization analysis only becomes relevant after the projects are out of development. Large companies use their sunk capital costs as a bargaining chip during the process and dominate the siting process. Frank Laird noted that the dominant process is still “decide, announce, and defend.” This used to be referenced often in planning literature but has largely become accepted as outdated (as inadequate) in that field. Anu Ramaswami observed that it seemed the broader issue is one of perception of different infrastructure changes (not just energy) (eg, the unsuccessful fate of a toilets to taps campaign against water reuse infrastructure) and posed the question of how do we address the issues of values, and how they feed into ethics. How do you bring people with different core values to a common table? Is it possible? Does the dominant group just do what they want, or let those in the minority voice their values?  

  Back to Top

Presentation 3:  Panel of Experts Question & Answer

Carl Mitcham

Mitcham’s paper in the briefing book is written to situate energy ethics discourse both historically and philosophically. The last third of the 20th century saw ethics begin to exhibit the structural differentiation characteristic of modernity.  For more than two thousand years, ethics had been conceived with Aristotle as systematic reflection on ethos or human behavior in general.  Now, reflecting modern professionalization and technological expansions in human action, ethics began to be regionalized into what are sometimes called applied or practical fields.  Examples include environmental ethics, bioethics, engineering ethics, business ethics, computer ethics, and more.  “Energy ethics” is another instance.  One general assumption at the basis of pro-energy morality and policy since the Industrial Revolution has been that increases in energy production and use are unqualified goods.  Debate then focuses on which forms are most justified and on what grounds (market or technical efficiency, environmental protection, social justice, et al.).  This can be termed type I energy ethics.  The assumption that energy production and use is an unqualified good may nevertheless be questioned, giving rise to a type II energy ethics that includes critical philosophical reflection on the nature and meaning of energy and the consideration of social paths to the reduction of energy production and use. Expanding on his paper, Mitcham talked about the idea that the term ‘energy’ itself is a philosophical issue, and perhaps we should start by thinking about the ontology of energy and what energy actually means outside of mathematical, numerical definitions. Perhaps it is possible to perceive energy from a different perspective and as something that needs to be balanced. Perhaps we don’t need more of it, but rather we need to move it around to the right places in the right way.   The discussion then shifted to talking about China and how to situate China within this framework. Mitcham’s experiences have led him to believe that the Chinese are not trying to compete on a per capita energy consumption basis, and that there is a subdominant discourse existing parallel to a Confucian revival that emphasizes these ideas of balance and harmony. John Ahearne’s and Proctor Reid’s experiences suggest a type I perspective – that China sees energy as a means to a better society, and that more energy leads to progress. 

Miller asked Mitcham to tie these ideas for framing the energy ethics discourse philosophically to the practical approaches one can take in decisions about appropriate pathways for progress. Mitcham suggested that his idealistic analysis is useful in the wake of catastrophes. We are on the cusp of distancing ourselves from our historic modes of energy dependency - what he calls a de-energization. As such, we must have anti-energy ideals as a model of health, so that when we are forced to be healthy there are ideas to draw on. These will then be expressed in the various pathway choices. He draws a parallel to the de-colonization that took place in post WWII Britain. After the war, the British were losing colonies rapidly but there was no one in England who could bring about total decolonization. Anti-colonialists could only present ideals for England to strive for. Once England did eventually lose its colonies, then these ideals were manifested through the pathways that presented themselves. In other words, establishing idealistic goals provides clear destinations towards which society can steer in the event it is suddenly blown off course. Without these destinations on the map, it is impossible to make decisive actions and set a clear course. In the context of this energy discussion, Mitcham suggests that it is important to use the philosophic underpinnings of ethics and morality to define a desirable ideal for our relationship with energy so that it will be available to direct policy and progress at critical decision moments.

  Back to Top

Frank Laird

             Laird’s paper in the briefing book critically examines implicit institutional and ethical assumptions that exist within energy policies and proposed systems. There are many instances in which the Type I energy ethic has become deeply entrenched in thinking of policy makers. The implied ethics when talking about energy aren’t often easily accessible, and are rarely, if ever, discussed. These ethics can exist both institutionally and individually, but they are revealed in two ways: focal goals, and non-focal consequences. Using Richard Sclove’s (1995) distinction between focal and non-focal purposes, a focal goal of a technology is its ostensible purpose whereas a non-focal consequence is one that lies outside of the intended purpose. For example, coal-fired power plants have a focal goal of generating electricity with a non-focal consequence of creating smog and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Laird’s paper looks at two specific cases in which you can get at the implicit energy ethics in energy policy by looking at the goals, and he determines that when it comes to energy policies there are really two historic ethically desirable goals: efficiency and security. However, these goals conceal multiple definitions and ambiguities. If we define ‘efficient’ to mean maximum output for minimum input, what should we count as inputs and outputs? Where do externalities fall in this equation? If we define security as autonomy when it comes to energy, how can we reconcile this with other ideas about free trade? Should we prioritize national or individual security? By not making goals explicit, trade-offs and conflicts are concealed. Non-focal consequences need also be considered when thinking about an energy-system transition; the implications for communities and educational institutions in the wake of shifts in the value of resources and skills required to enact and maintain this transition are just the tip of the non-focal consequence iceberg. 

This project is tasked with first identifying the values within the institutional goals, then critically analyzing these values to ensure internal consistency and defensibility in comparison to any established ethical standards, and then finally performing a scenario analysis to think through the non-focal effects of these goals. This final task involves considering things like supply chain vulnerability (geo-political, environmental, social disruption), effect on the work-force, customer preference and demand, and the social implications of change, It is in performing this comprehensive scenario analysis that non-focal consequences will emerge and can be used to make informed decisions about the implementation of new energy technologies. 

  Back to Top

Anu Ramaswami

Ramaswami has observed that graduate students in science and engineering appreciate the opportunity to ponder the ethical implications of their research as well as the larger societal context which influences those efforts. Her talk called on the material that she uses in two of her classes for the Sustainable Urban Infrastructure program supported by an NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT) award. This program includes students from urban architecture and planning, public affairs, engineering, and behavioral sciences. The classes that Ramaswami talked about were the ones she teaches, Introduction to Sustainable Infrastructure and Defining and Measuring Sustainability, and each of these classes contains an ethics module.    

The Introduction to Sustainable Infrastructure class begins with discussions about what is development, and what are its goals? Faculty members provide data demonstrating contrasts for human development objectives. The human capabilities approach put forth by Amartya Sen and the basic needs approach of Peter Gleik are contrasted with utility theory and discussed, and Ramaswami has found that this really helps to reorient environmentally-minded students to think past basic human needs and classic economic theory and to broaden their perspective. This approach to teaching the class with this introduction has also helped to reconcile strong opposing positions throughout the course. The class discussion then moves into comparisons of efficiency versus sufficiency, and asks students to consider whether more is always better. Discussions of the human development index as a function of per capita energy use then follow, along with examining whether the high US energy consumption is an accident of our geography. Ramaswami has found at this point that the students are interested in talking about ethics in their individual disciplines, and report on their own codes of ethics from their professional societies, which is covered in a summer session. 

The Defining and Measuring Sustainability class introduces the ideal in an equitable world of 2 megatons CO₂ equivalents per capita (the US is around 25 currently). Students then think about what structural changes we would have to make to get to this ideal, and what the costs of those changes would be. They spend time discussing who should pay and who says who should pay before ending with the concepts of social justice and Rawlsian ethics[3]. Much of this discussion surfaces students’ diverse personal beliefs and values. This idea really connected with the students, and they created a survey to map their different views after the class ended. 

During the question and comments offered after Ramaswami’s presentation, several participants commented that engineers and applied scientists are generally more receptive to alternative ideas than humanities students. They come to the table with less ideology, and are solution oriented. Kelly Moore commented on this class’s ability to generate so much student interest and engagement, and asked the group to think about how we can translate that into the National Institute. Participants indicated that making use of difference (both discipline and background) to generate new ideas seemed promising. 

  Back to Top

Session 4: Program Development

NIEES Workshop Development

             This discussion began with Miller sharing that he sees the ASU seminar feeding into the NIEES by providing deepened scholarship in the area of energy ethics, as well as a set of intellectual foundations to build upon. The vision is that this Institute would be an activity where students would be trained to go back to their home institutions and educate others, so there must be time devoted to strategies for effectively encouraging teaching. The group discussed the fundamental concepts that this Institute would be trying to articulate; participants offered that some themes could be the Smart Grid, public engagement, energy choices and social justice, agendas of different interest groups and the role of expertise. Several recommended that participating students should become well versed in the different frameworks for discussing social justice issues and they should know something about basic human needs and the human capabilities approach, as demonstrated nicely in Ramaswami’s model. Several participants stressed the need to emphasize value clarification and self-criticism of values. This Institute will require content learning and the team should think about what it wants participating students (with large, often competing, demands on their time) to come away with. The group discussed the importance of faculty buy-in and that this could be heightened by the students producing a solid, tangible output. Another suggestion was to turn the table from a broad perspective to an individual research project focus and ask students to apply what they are learning at the Institute to their own research and graduate program. Miller clarified that the largest take-away will be the plan for an educational activity that each student produces. This could be a modular activity such as organizing a seminar, journal club, or debate, for example.    

             After discussing the project timeline, the team determined that the NIEES should be in the summer at ASU in Phoenix or in Denver where Colorado School of Mines, University of Denver, and University of Colorado Denver are in close proximity. Having 15 students attend from diverse disciplines would be ideal. Laird suggested that the committee spend time thinking about whom to target. Is it students expecting to stay in academia, or those who are already thinking about more non-traditional career paths? This could influence some of the choices made about content in the course and how applicants are chosen. An idea that was raised separately by both Hollander and Miller was to appeal to centers at the students’ home institutions to fund part or all of the travel to this institute to raise additional funding to include more students. 

             The group shared ideas for different platforms to advertise the program above and beyond those assembled in preparation of the proposal, including student policy websites, Facebook, Twitter, and professional Masters programs. To maintain participant engagement after the program, some of the presentations could be webcast and/or posted on Youtube. Joe Herkert expanded on this idea by suggesting the team could also use webinars to educate the students with some background material before they arrive at the NIEES.

  Back to Top

Policy Workshop Development

             In addition to the National Institute, the third year of grant will include a policy workshop for a broad interested audience, particularly people in policy oriented positions or S&E education, interested in energy ethics. This public workshop is intended to attract a broad audience; it will draw on what has been learned throughout the project and present these findings to the attentive public. This session started envisioning what this workshop would look like. Miller envisions this as a day long event with a combination of speakers and presentation of results. Moore suggested that we find some way to integrate the student projects into this and connect to the educational activities, so as to value student work and provide incentives for future work here. Miller agreed we should include these; but we must also recognize that the focus of this workshop is to disseminate information to a subset of people in Washington DC who are engaged in engineering policy and energy policy and bring them insights about what it means to take ethics more seriously. 

When thinking about the intent of the workshop, the question was posed whether it is to publicize what has been done, or to excite people about a research agenda. This workshop should really mix both; the goal should be to disseminate these findings in a way that excites these politically powerful groups to collaborate and find common ground within energy ethics. Miller also suggested that we consider coupling with the Future Tense series (a collaboration between Slate.com, ASU, and the New America Foundation) and turning this into a 1.5 day long event. This idea was well received. Hollander saw it as a way to blend the educational focus of the project with a policy focus. One of the important issues for the science policy community is how these questions and issues and perspectives and results become part of the educational environment so people have incorporated them into educational process. Ethical and social dimensions should be part of the educational process, and you can’t just issue edicts. By having a policy discussion precede the workshop focused on educational results, best practices, etc these two initiatives tie together nicely. Along these lines of educating different types of people, Mitcham suggested this work be presented at the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE) Annual Meeting. Laird suggested reaching out to large professional societies like the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and educating them about the ethical issues.

 Back to Top 

Other Workshop Topics and Next Steps

             The project’s external evaluator, Lynette Osborne, facilitated a session at the workshop to discuss the methods and timeline for evaluation of project activities. There are several focuses for the assessment: the NAE workshops, the ASU educational activities, and the NIEES. Participants discussed what the evaluation criteria should be and plans for administering evaluation protocols or observing project activities. Osborne will follow up with the project co-PIs to assure that the evaluation will occur at times of use in project planning as well as final assessment. Co-PI Hollander identified the development of sustainability plans for the project – particularly the NIEES - as something that needed to begin in Year II.

At the conclusion of the workshop, Osborne sent an electronic survey to attendees to evaluate the overall success of the workshop.  While only five attendees completed that survey, those who responded indicated overall satisfaction with the workshop.  Most also indicated that the goals for the workshop were met, and that they were satisfied with the speaker's presentations. 

The necessary next steps for the project involve undertaking the second year educational activities at ASU and planning for the NIEES and the policy and educational workshops to occur in the third project year. Persons who attended in this workshop will be contacted to participate in the second year efforts. 

  Back to Top

---

  Back to Top