Energy Ethics; J. Weber

James A. Weber A PositiveResponse ENERGY is the capacity to do work. We use energy to do work which otherwise would have to be done by using our arms and legs and backs. It is·through the increased use of in animate energy such as coal, oil, gas and nuclear power in place of and as an extension of our own human en ergy that we have been able to achieve continuing material progress. Energy performs an ex tremely vital function which is just as important today as it has been in the past and will be in the future. Mr. Weber of Chicago specializes In communications and public relations. He Is author of Power Grab: The Conserver cunand the Coming Energy Catastrophe, reviewed in the July 1980 Freeman. He made this pre sentation at an energy awareness/management con ference called "Energy Crossroads." Held on No vember 18-19, 1980 at the Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago Cluster, the conference was co sponsored by the school and Energy Education Pro grams, Woodstock, Illinois.

In these times, however, energy is being asked to do many things which it hasn't been asked to do in the past. It apparently is not enough that energy does an ever-increasing amount of work for us. Now, energy is also being asked to help rearrange our social relationships. In addition, it is being asked to assist in devising a new economic system. Further more, it is being asked to contribute to the development of a new political system. Finally, it is being asked in one way or another to practically show us the way to salvation. With all these demands, it would come as no surprise if energy were to simply throw up its hands and say: ttI'm going out and have a ner vous breakdown; I deserve it." Per haps to some extent, this is what we have been witnessing in recent years 195 196 THE FREEMAN .April in the case of energy: a nervous breakdown. And no wonder. Following the en ergy crisis in 1973, it seems that ev ery group in the country has come forward with plans and proposals for what energy should or shouldn't be, should or shouldn't do, should or shouldn't develop into. Oftentimes, the basic function of energy to do work has seemingly been ignored, if not completely forgotten, in the rush to use energy as a tool for accom plishing some social, economic, po litical or moral goal. And, in this rush to capture energy for uour side,"

religious groups have become in creasingly vocal. The Religious Perspective The religious approach is on two levels. One is the quite practical level on which all of us operate: How can we reduce the amount of energy we use, or use it more efficiently, in or der to hold the line on, or even re duce our energy costs? There are of course many positive and practical things that can be done at this level. The other level is more of a philo sophical one in which the overall role of energy is evaluated from a social, economic, political and, ulti mately, theological perspective. Many of the questions asked at this level are ones that weren't asked as little as 10 years ago. The number of people who in 1970 questioned the relative ethical merits of solar energy versus nuclear energy or pon dered the moral worth of co-genera tion were distinctly in the minority. Yet questions like these apparently are of blazing theological signifi cance to many religious groups to day.

To develop answers to these ques tions, we must have some historical perspective on energy and its role in past and present societies. For ex ample, why use energy in the first place? Why not just use our own hu man energy and forgo the use of other energy forms? Because we hu man beings are extremely small, in efficient and costly producers of en ergy. Working at maximum strength, we might be able to produce enough energy to power a 100-watt bulb but only for a short time. Some of you may recall Bronko Nagurski who played fullback for the Chicago Bears. Bronko was once asked where he got his tremendous physical strength. He said it came from plow ing fields. But they said to him: ttDh, c'mon, Bronko, a lot of people plow fields and don't have a build like yours." And Bronko's response was: ttWithout a horse?" Just imagine Bronko Nagurski plowing a field without a horse. How much power do you think he was producing? Just about enough to power a 100-watt light bulb, which is an infinitesimal amount in the world of energy.

We human beings are also very 1981 ENERGY ETHICS: A POSITIVE RESPONSE 197 inefficient energy users when you consider the total amount of energy which goes into producing the food we consume to provide our energy. It takes about 10 units of energy in terms of gas to power farm tractors and other energy to produce fertil izer, bring food to market and re frigerate it before use to produce one unit of food energy. So, by the time food gets on the table, it represents an energy efficiency level of only 10 per cent. Then, when we consume the food, our bodies use up about two-thirds of its energy content just to keep our systems going. Only what's left is available for doing work and this comes to an efficiency level of only about 3 per cent. By compar ison, a nuclear or coal-fired power plant operates at an efficiency level of 40 per cent or more. Finally, human energy is very costly. Take, for example, a simple task such as toasting a piece of bread.

If we were to use human energy, we could hook upa bicycle to a genera tor and peddle the bicycle to produce electricity to toast the bread. Now, a typical toaster hits a piece of bread with 1,000 watts for one minute to toast it. But, since we can only produce about 100 watts, we would have to peddle the bicycle furiously for about 10 minutes to achieve the same toasted bread. Suppose we hired ~omebody to toast this piece of bread for us at a minimum wage of $3 per hour. It would cost us 50 cents to have the worker peddle the bike for 10 minutes. But the electricity which comes out of that hole in the wall to toast the bread would cost only 1/ 10th of a cent at a rate of 6¢ per kilowatt-hour. In other words, hu man energy would cost 500 times more •than inanimate energy, and this ratio between the costs of hu man energy versus inanimate en ergy holds true for other jobs, too. Human Energy Is Limited Man, therefore, is a small, ineffi cient and costly producer of energy.

Today, there is a highly vocal posi tion which has grown up around the view that this smallness of man is a good thing. The philosophical or theological leader of this movement is the lateE. F. Schumacher, and the ubible" of the movement is his book,Small Is Beautiful. In this book, Schumacher states that ((man is small, therefore, small is beautiful." This view has become the starting point for a whole string of suppos edly ((moral" positions concerning energy, including the use of so-called ((natural" or ((soft" versus so-called ((unnatural" or ((hard" energy re sources, operation of decentralized versus centralized energy facilities, and zero versus continuing growth in the use of energy. However, it should be pointed out that there is nothing ((beautiful" about being small to men and women who need energy to improve living 198 THE FREEMAN April conditions for themselves and their families. So it should not be a source of wonder that not only have people been eager to develop energy but the history of human advancement has been based on the increasing use of larger, more efficient and more eco nomical energy resources in place of the small, inefficient and costly en ergy provided by human beings.

Primitive man consumed energy only in the form of plant food, and his consumption consisted of about 2,000 kilocalories a day-only enough to keep him functioning from day to day. This more than doubled to 5,000 kilocalories a day when he began to hunt and use fire as a source of energy. Early agricultural man more than doubled energy consump tion again to 12,000 kilocalories a day. Another doubling occurred to 27,000 kilocalories a day when ag ricultural man advanced through the use of better tools and domestic ani mals. Early industrial man almost tripled his daily energy consump tion to 70,000 kilocalories a day around 1870. By 1970, we had more than tripled energy use again to 230,000 kilocalories a day. This tremendous growth in en ergy consumption over the last 10,000 years has basically enabled people to do more and more work with less and less human energy, freeing people from the physical slavery of the past. As Roger Re velle, Harvard professor of population policy, puts it: (CAn old saying has it, (slavery will persist until the loom weaves itself.' All ancient civ ilizations, no matter how enlight ened or creative, rested on slavery and grinding human labor, because human and animal muscle power were the principal forms of energy available for mechanical work. The discovery of ways to use less expen sive sources of energy than human muscles made it possible for men to be free."

Labor-SavingDevices To put this point another way, the historical record of growth in energy consumption provides the most splendid record of energy conserva tion that we have available to us to day. This may seem like a contradic tion. How can growth in energy consumption be an example of en ergy conservation? The reason is that growth has been in the consumption of inanimate energy, making it pos sible to conserve human energy, thus freeing people for creative, intellec tual, organizational, and manage rial work which only they are capa ble of doing. This increased freedom, of course, is especially relevant in the case of women who have been relieved of much of the physical drudgery of housework, while si multaneously being provided in creased opportunities for jobs and careers which don't involve heavy physical labor .

1981 ENERGY ETHICS: A POSITIVE RESPONSE 199 What have been the results of this growth in energy consumption? The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria studied this question and found that in creasing per capita energy con sumption is closely associated with increases in our life spans and re ductions in infant mortality. In other words, although many other factors are undoubtedly involved, growing energy consumption has made it possible for more people to survive to adulthood and live longer lives af ter they do. To put it another way, growing use of energy has created an environment more conducive to the health and well-being of people. Growing use of energy has also created a safer environment for peo ple. Today, the risk of disabling or fatal accidents· is reduced because energy has reduced the need for peo ple to do physical work, thus reduc ing the greatest occasion for acci dents. The National Safety Council reports, for example, that ((between 1912 and 1977 accidental deaths per 100,000 population were reduced 41 per cent from 82 to 48."

Growing energy consumption has also been accompanied by a long term reduction in the real cost of en ergy. As more and more energy has been used, its real cost has become lower. This has not been a constant trend. There have been peaks and valleys along the way, just as we are now in a period when real costs are rising rather than falling. But the long range historical trend has been one of falling energy. prices in real terms. Furthermore, the increasing use and falling cost of energy have helped to narrow the gap between rich and poor. Studies show that inequalities of income between rich and poor be come less as energy usage increases. Another way of stating this is that it is only in countries with high en ergy usage that you find a signifi cant middle class. Economic Development Slows Rate of Population Growth Socioeconomic advancement, fueled by growth in energy con sumption' has also been accom panied by a gradual slowing in the rate of population growth. This is a common and paradoxical occurrence in countries as they economically advance. Even though the advance brings with it expanded longevity and a falling death rate, the birth rate eventually falls even faster, re sulting in leveling out of population growth.

Now', for all of these reasons, up until the late Sixties or early Sev enties, growth in energy consump tion was generally considered to be a ((good thing." However, since this time, this assumption has come un der increasing attack by many dif ferent groups, including religious ,groups, who claim that continuing 200 THE FREEMAN April growth in energy consumption is not a ttgood thing" but a ttbad thing." For example, it is claimed that in creasing use of energy is destroying the natural environment. Amory Lovins of the environmentalist or ganization, Friends of the Earth, ex presses this view when he states that (tit would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we might do with it." Popula tion controller and environmental ist Paul Ehrlich is more blunt about it, stating that to give society cheap, abundant energy would be ttthe equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." The testimony ofthese observers leads to the conclusion that our problems today consist of having too much rather than too little en ergy. But these views give no cre dence at all to the observable reality that growing energy use has not only helped to improve the well-being and health of people but helped to create a more habitable human environ ment.

It is claimed that the energy re sources we currently use-coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power-are finite and are running out, and therefore should no longer be used. But this view flies in the face of the fact that there are sufficient re serves of these energy resources to fuel continuing increases in energy use for centuries to come. It is claimed that tremendous amounts of energy are wasted and therefore conservation and conser vation alone can permit continuing economic advancement without the need for increased energy use. How ever, this view is based on invalid comparisons with other countries whose energy requirements are dif ferent. It also totally neglects the fact that many people in this coun try-particularly lower-income peo ple-have already reduced their en ergy use to the bare minimum. Consequently, any further conser vation or reduction in energy use will exert real and immediate hu man hardships.

Many Questions Unanswered It is also claimed that so-called re newable energy sources such as so lar energy, wind power and biomass can provide for any additional in crease in energy we may need while eventually replacing our so-called non-renewable energy resources coal, oil, gas and nuclear power. But no mention is usually made of the fact that the costs of solar energy, wind power and biomass currently are many times those of coal, oil, gas and nuclear power, putting them well beyond the pocketbooks of all but the most affluent Americans. Finally, it is claimed that energy conservation, plus the use of so-called renewable energy resources such as solar energy, wind power and bio mass, will result in improved family 1981 ENERGY ETHICS: A POSITIVE RESPONSE 201 life, better social relationships, greater political participation and more moral lifestyles. But one has to seriously ask if energy, whose ba sic function is to do work, is really capable of accomplishing all of these other worthy objectives. Or is this simply a case of attempting to use energy as some kind of ((magic wand"

to solve basically human problems when in fact the problems, as al ways, reside not so much in the choice between centralized nuclear power plants and decentralized solar en ergy facilities but in the human heart? It is difficult enough to discuss much less come to any kind of con clusion concerning questions such as these when all of the facts on en ergy are completely known and ac cepted. But it is literally impossible if basic energy facts are unknown or ignored. Life Is Energy It is therefore highly important to know and understand the basic facts of energy. And the most basic fact about energy is that its primary purpose is to do work. You or I may come up with all kinds of glorious, utopian schemes on how we can use energy to improve our social, eco nomic, political and moral condi tions. But the basic ethical question which must be asked first of any en ergy proposal is: Will it provide suf ficient energy to do the work neces sary to not only maintain but advance the health, well-being, safety and socioeconomic progress of all people, poor as well as rich? Any answer to this question which does not come up a resounding ((YES"

represents an irresponsible and unethical toying with the lives and fortunes of people rather than a le gitimate and ethical path of future energy development. @ IDEAS ON LIBERTY THIS entire planet is made up of energy. The atoms of air surrounding it are energy. The sun pours energy upon this air and upon this earth. Life depends on energy; in fact, life is energy. Every living thing must struggle for its existence, and human beings are no exception. The thin defenses of civilization tend to obscure the stark realities; but men and women survive on this earth only because their energies constantly convert other forms of energy to satisfy human needs, and constantly attack the nonhuman energies that are dangerous to human existence. In the last analysis, there can be no progress except through the more effective use of our individual energies, personal initiatives, and imag inative abilities-applied to the things and forces of nature.

HENRY GRADY WEAVER, The Mainspring ofHuman Progress HenryHazlitt WHEN WATER IS SCARCE As I WRITE THIS, New York City, Greenwich, Connecticut, and many towns in New Jersey, are faced with a water shortage. Universally their officials are ascribing this shortage to (Clackof rain." That is certainly one cause. But there is another no less important. Water is distributed and consumed on socialistic principles. In New York City water metering is required for all commercial buildings, but not for residential buildings. Water is then paid for by the user not in propor tion to what he consumes, but in his general tax bill. So it is used wastefully. Any num ber of families let the water run freely, prolong their showers, never think twice before turning on their dishwashers, watering their lawns or washing their cars. They are wor ried even less about wasting the city water supply. On hot days. fire hy drants are opened up, allowed to gush freely· all day, so that an occasional urchin can wade and splash in an artificial river of water.