The Future of Fossil Fuels from an Ethical Perspective - Research Paper Example

The Future of Fossil Fuels from an Ethical Perspective The Future of Fossil Fuels from an Ethical Perspective The modern economies have become over dependent on fossil fuels. The future of fossils fuels remains a fundamental ethical issue. In applied ethics, an analyst will be concerned with the duties or the roles of whistleblowers in relation to the subject. There is a growing concern on the long-term sustainability of the American economy. Energy is a critical factor in economic growth and sustainability. However, there is dilemma concerning the choice of energy and rate of energy consumption. Thus, the choice of a source of energy depends on its long-term sustainability and its impacts on the environment (Mabro, 2007). This essay will analyze fossil fuels from an ethical perspective. In addition, the essay explores how different ethical approaches would handle the topic. The impacts of fossils fuels on the environment are well known. Fossil fuels have been identified as the leading cause of fossil fuels. Despite the availability of alternative sources of energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear energy, the question of fossil fuels persist. In addition, the cost of different oil based products and fuels such as gasoline, diesels, and lubricants have increased dramatically. This has resulted from increased cost of production and increasing demand. Despite these drawbacks, more and more wells are being sunk as pipelines to transport the commodity are being built. Moreover, car manufactures have been in full operation in their attempt to meet the demand. Global warming remains the main threat in the modern world. If the predictions on global warming are true, then the world would became inhabitable in the near future. It is our moral obligation to protect the globe as the home for humankind. The responsibilities of governments and policy makers remain as the main ethical issues into the matter. Indeed governments and policy makers are responsible for the well fare of the society. Moreover, government and policy makers should make policies that ensure long-term sustainability of the planet and humanity. This indicates the need to separate politics from environmental issues. In this case, governments and other policy makers are expected to make laws or policies that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the planet. The future of fossil fuels is a controversial issue and, hence the need for a detailed analyses. Ethical concerns on the topic should place the way forward concerning the continued use of fossil fuels. Firstly, the role of fossil fossils in global warming is an issue of concern in the modern world. Secondly, an analyst needs to be concerned with the significance of fossil fuels global economies and the impact of its elimination. In this case, a philosopher would be concerned with the long-term benefits of fuel-based or a fuel-free economy. Indeed, fossil fuels have their own advantages and disadvantages. On the other hand, elimination of fossils fuels would have its own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, an ethical option should have more pros than cons. Indeed, advantages and disadvantages of either of the option depend on the ethical approach applied in the analysis. According to Mabro, there is a significant level of disconnect between scholars and policy makers (2007). The author claims that while scholars strive to make non-partisan conclusion and recommendations on fossil fuels, policy makers are influenced by other forces. The authors identify global politics as the main force that influences the direction of policy makers. Thus, policy makers are concerned with the political or economic implication of their decisions rather than their ethical implication. Certainly, policy makers base their decisions on the global economic trends and politics. Thus, policy makers miss the moral question. In addition, ethical solutions to the problem should be concerned with the long-term implication of fossil fuels on the producing regions. Thus, an amicable decision should have a solution to fundamental questions such as conflicts and food production. The need to make the right decision is the main factor that distinguishes applied ethics from other schools of thought. Indeed, alternative ethics would have different stand or point of view on the issue. Normative ethics is concerned with the standard of rightness or wrongness of a certain action. In this case, a philosopher would be concerned with ethical standards of either option. Indeed, the fossil fuels question has various options. Moreover, each of the option has its own standard or degree of rightness or wrongness. Preference of either of the two options depends on the perspective of an observer. In either of the options, short-term implications would be the most noticeable. Thus, an observer will be concerned with the immediate or short-term implications of fossil fuels. Thus, decisions on continued use or abandonment of fossil fuels would depend on the immediate rather than the long-term impacts. In this case, the global climate change question will be unnecessary. Consequently, the economic and political implications of fossil fuels will be of immediate concerns. Moreover, normative ethics will not concentrate on the role of man in enhancing long-term sustainability of the planet. Consequently, questions on the value of life would be less significant. Thus, a normative observer will be concerned with the ethical value of each option rather than the moral obligation of human beings and absoluteness of ethical decision (Roland, 2006). Unlike applied and normative ethics, meta-ethics studies the nature of ethical statements and attitude. In this case, a philosopher will be concerned with the need to distinguish between right and wrong. Thus the option on the future of fossils fuels need to be categorized as good or a bad option. This would be a difficult task since neither of the measures is absolute. For instance, proposal for continued use of fossil fuels would be based on the economic significance of fossil fuels rather than the environmental impacts. On the other hand, preference for alternative fuels would be based on the need to diversify global economies and energy resources. I consider the fossil fuel question and global warming problem inseparable. However, the two should be explored from a different point of view. Ideally, none of the issues has an absolute solution. Due to the environmental effects of fossil fuels, the world is searching for alternative sources of energy. The escalating global oil prices also indicate the unsustainable future of oil-based economies of oil as the main source of energy for global economies (Akiner, & Aldis, 2004). In addition, most economies are considering using alternative sources of energy such as solar, wind and nuclear energy to minimize the revenues spent on oil. For instance, the US consumes about 60% of the total. America import 80% of its oil from Africa and the Middle East. Despite this demand, America is considering other alternative sources of energy in order to attain energy security. The country is investing in other renewable energy such as bio fuels and solar energy to reduce dependence on oil. Recent reports on global warming indicate that 30% of green house gases are produced by human activities. I find the facts suspicious since they do not account for carbon dioxide produced by natural activities. In addition, the rate indicates that artificial green house production will surpass the total natural output of green house gases. This is sarcastic since human activities cannot surpass nature. The figures are misrepresented to caution people about global warming. It is a fact that 70% of US electricity is produced from non-renewable sources (Rokeach, 2007). These figures indicate a worrying trend on US energy sector and economy, considering the increasing prices of fossil fuels and their impacts on nature. Thus, fossil fuels need not to be criminalized but managed to sustainable levels. Solutions to global warming have been unsuccessful due to their connection with the economy. Indeed, solutions to the fossil fuels question should be concerned with the alternative energy source option rather than the right or wrong decision. For example, it is impossible to reduce carbon emissions since global economies are dependent on fossil fuels, which generate the pollutant. A creative idea to solve the problem would consider carbon emission as a resource rather than a problem. It is well known that green plants synthesis energy from sunlight and carbon dioxide. Similarly, we can develop artificial system that uses sunlight to synthesis energy using sunlight and water. This process would help to eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and solve the energy crisis. The main advantage of the solution is that it will solve the energy crisis and reduce global warming. However, the idea would be costly to implement and may interfere with atmospheric composition. This proves that eliminating or maintaining fossil fuels in the mainstream economy is not an easy task. In addition, a moral decision should be beneficial to all parties. Thus, the correctness or wrongness of a certain decision depends on its applicability. In conclusion, the degree of rightness or wrongness in a decision depends on its long-term implication rather than its immediate results. Consequently, neither of the decisions is morally or ethically right from a meta-ethic, normative or an applied ethic perspective. Lack for absolute measures of correctness determines the validity of alternative ethics. The fossil fuel question cannot be validated from either an applied, meta-ethical or a normative ethic approach. References Akiner, S. & Aldis, A. (2004). The Caspian: Politics, Energy and Security. New York: Routledge Mabro, R. (2007). Oil in the 21st century: issues, challenges, and opportunities. Oxford Press Roland, M. (2006). Presentation to the 4th Annual World Congress Leadership Summit on Healthcare Quality and Pay-for-Performance. Boston: MA. Rokeach, M. (2007). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Read More