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)|
References found in this work BETA
Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations.Avner De-Shalit - 1995 - Routledge.
Sustainable and Intergenerational Justice.Brian Barry - 1999 - In Andrew Dobson (ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oxford University Press.
Justice, Posterity, and the Environment.Wilfred Beckerman & Joanna Pasek - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
What Do We Owe the Next Generation(S)?Axel Gosseries - 2001 - Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 35 (1):293-354.
Citations of this work BETA
Nuclear Energy as a Social Experiment.Ibo van de Poel - 2011 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (3):285 - 290.
Reversible Experiments: Putting Geological Disposal to the Test.Jan Peter Bergen - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3):707-733.
Multinational Nuclear Waste Repositories and Their Complex Issues of Justice.Behnam Taebi - 2012 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (1):57 - 62.
The Morally Desirable Option for Nuclear Power Production.Behnam Taebi - 2011 - Philosophy and Technology 24 (2):169-192.
Applying Value Sensitive Design to Wind Turbines and Wind Parks: An Exploration.Ilse Oosterlaken - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (2):359-379.
Similar books and articles
Scientific and Social Judgments of Safety in the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept.Mary Richardson - 2000 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 19 (1):33-46.
Environmental Risks, Uncertainty and Intergenerational Ethics.Kristian Skagen Ekeli - 2004 - Environmental Values 13 (4):421-448.
Equity and Nuclear Waste Disposal.Kristin Shrader-Frechette - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (2):133-156.
Framing Ethical Acceptability: A Problem with Nuclear Waste in Canada.Ethan Wilding - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):301-313.
Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future.R. Routley & V. Routley - 1978 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 21 (1-4):133 – 179.
An Uncomfortable Responsibility: Ethics and Nuclear Waste.Mats Andren - 2012 - The European Legacy 17 (1):71 - 82.
Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change.Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):19-23.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #228,346 of 2,171,693 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,424 of 2,171,693 )
How can I increase my downloads?