An egalitarian response to utilitarian analysis of long-lived pollution: The case of high-level radioactive waste
Environmental Ethics 22 (1):43-62 (2000)
High-level radioactive waste is not fundamentally different from all other pollutants having long life spans in the biosphere. Nevertheless, its management has been treated differently by policy makers in the United States as well as most other nations, who have chosen permanent isolation from the biosphere as the objective of high-level radioactive waste disposal policy. This policy is to be attained by burial deep within stable geologic formations. The fundamental justification for this policy choice has been provided by utilitarian ethical analysis. It, in turn, has been supported primarily by assumptions, based on expert opinion, about the ultimate safety of geologic disposal. However, close analysis of these assumptions reveals that the safety of geologic disposal is highly uncertain. Moreover, factors such as the possibility for human intrusion into repository sites make it impossible to even guess at the ultimate consequences of any policy choice pertaining to the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste. I discuss why utilitarian ethics cannot be used to determine the efficacy of such policy choices. I then develop an alternative approach which is based on egalitarian principles of procedure and utilize it to explore policy proposals which promote justice and equity in the high-level radioactive waste management process. I argue that there are two possible solutions to the high-level radioactive waste dilemma: an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to create an institution to advocate on behalf of the interests of future generations and the active management of the waste in monitored, retrievable facilities in perpetuity. Of these two options, I find maintaining surveillance and vigilance in perpetuity to safeguard high-level radioactive waste to be preferable because of its political and ethical efficacy
|Keywords||Applied Philosophy General Interest|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Representing High-Level Properties in Perceptual Experience.Parker Crutchfield - 2012 - Philosophical Psychology 25 (2):279 - 294.
Ethical Dilemmas and Radioactive Waste: A Survey of the Issues.Kristin Shrader-Frechette - 1991 - Environmental Ethics 13 (4):327-343.
An Uncomfortable Responsibility: Ethics and Nuclear Waste.Mats Andren - 2012 - The European Legacy 17 (1):71 - 82.
Framing the Problem of Radioactive Waste : Public and Institutional Perspectives.Jane Hunt - unknown
Can We Harm and Benefit in Creating?Elizabeth Harman - 2004 - Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1):89–113.
Framing Ethical Acceptability: A Problem with Nuclear Waste in Canada.Ethan Wilding - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):301-313.
Equity and Nuclear Waste Disposal.Kristin Shrader-Frechette - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (2):133-156.
Authors and Publication Practices.Michael JG Farthing - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):41-52.
Ethical Theory Versus Unethical Practice: Radiation Protection and Future Generations.Kristin Shrader-Frechette - 1998 - Ethics and the Environment 3 (2):177 - 195.
Questioning Nuclear Waste Substitution: A Case Study.Alan Marshall - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1):83-98.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #230,051 of 2,178,129 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,663 of 2,178,129 )
How can I increase my downloads?