David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (2):177-200 (2008)
This paper approaches the choice between the open and closed nuclear fuel cycles as a matter of intergenerational justice, by revealing the value conflicts in the production of nuclear energy. The closed fuel cycle improve sustainability in terms of the supply certainty of uranium and involves less long-term radiological risks and proliferation concerns. However, it compromises short-term public health and safety and security, due to the separation of plutonium. The trade-offs in nuclear energy are reducible to a chief trade-off between the present and the future. To what extent should we take care of our produced nuclear waste and to what extent should we accept additional risks to the present generation, in order to diminish the exposure of future generation to those risks? The advocates of the open fuel cycle should explain why they are willing to transfer all the risks for a very long period of time (200,000 years) to future generations. In addition, supporters of the closed fuel cycle should underpin their acceptance of additional risks to the present generation and make the actual reduction of risk to the future plausible.
|Keywords||Intergenerational justice Nuclear waste management Reprocessing Recycling Future generations Value conflicts Sustainability|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Brian Barry (1997). Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice. Theoria 44 (89):43-64.
Brian Barry (1999). Sustainable and Intergenerational Justice. In Andrew Dobson (ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oup Oxford.
Wilfred Beckerman (1997). Debate: Intergenerational Equity and the Environment. Journal of Political Philosophy 5 (4):392–405.
Avner De-Shalit (1995). Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations. Routledge.
Citations of this work BETA
Behnam Taebi (2011). The Morally Desirable Option for Nuclear Power Production. Philosophy and Technology 24 (2):169-192.
Behnam Taebi (2012). Multinational Nuclear Waste Repositories and Their Complex Issues of Justice. Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (1):57 - 62.
Ibo van de Poel (2011). Nuclear Energy as a Social Experiment. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (3):285 - 290.
Similar books and articles
Nick Bostrom (2002). Existential Risks. Journal of Evolution and Technology 9.
Mats Andren (2012). An Uncomfortable Responsibility: Ethics and Nuclear Waste. The European Legacy 17 (1):71 - 82.
John Levendis, Walter Block & Joseph Morrel (2006). Nuclear Power. Journal of Business Ethics 67 (1):37 - 49.
R. Routley & V. Routley (1978). Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future. Inquiry 21 (1-4):133 – 179.
Ethan Wilding (2012). Framing Ethical Acceptability: A Problem with Nuclear Waste in Canada. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):301-313.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (1994). Equity and Nuclear Waste Disposal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (2):133-156.
Kristian Skagen Ekeli (2004). Environmental Risks, Uncertainty and Intergenerational Ethics. Environmental Values 13 (4):421-448.
Mary Richardson (2000). Scientific and Social Judgments of Safety in the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 19 (1):33-46.
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette (2009). Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):19-23.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #143,963 of 1,098,129 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #172,576 of 1,098,129 )
How can I increase my downloads?