Episode: 3347
Title: HPR3347: Ethical Analysis of Renewable Energy and Conservation
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr3347/hpr3347.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-24 21:13:51

---

This is Hacker Public Radio Episode 3347 Fortunity, the 1st of June 2021.
Today's show is entitled Ethical Analysis of Renewable Energy and Conservation.
It is hosted by Palk Work and is about 15 minutes long and carries a clean flag.
The summary is, I read a paper I wrote about the ethical issues of renewable energy and conservation efforts.
This episode of HPR is brought to you by Ananasthost.com.
Get 15% discount on all shared hosting with the offer code HPR15.
That's HPR15.
Better web hosting that's honest and fair at Ananasthost.com.
Good day, good listener of Hacker Public Radio and welcome back to the Palk Work Show.
It's been a while since my last weekly podcast.
The pandemic created a unique opportunity for me at the local power plant,
and so I've been too busy with work to come up with new podcasts.
However, there has been a call for shows and so I decided to contribute something that
means a lot to me. Back in 2009, my province of Ontario had implemented a program that paid
people many times the going rate of electricity to put solar panels on their roof.
The name of this program was the Feed and Tariff or Fit program, which applied to businesses
in large installations. For smaller installations, 10 kilowatts and smaller, we had the Microfit program.
I took a college program in renewable energy back then. As part of that program, I wrote an essay
where I explored ethical concerns about renewable energy and conservation efforts.
Before I wrote this essay, I saw the addition of green renewable energy sources to our infrastructure
to be a good thing. However, after researching this paper, I came away with genuine ethical
concerns. This really opened my eyes to the real harm that can be done if we just push forward
with green initiatives without considering their impact on our society.
There won't be any music at the end of this podcast because I want this episode to stand
on its own. Even though I wrote this paper over 10 years ago, I believe it's more important
than ever to make people aware of the harm that these new initiatives can cause to our society
if we don't take care to ensure those who are at or near the poverty line are taken care of.
I have done my best to keep politics and my own personal biases out of this research,
and it's really important to me that this information is shared and understood by as many people
as possible. Because of this, I uploaded this paper to scribed.com shortly after I wrote it,
hoping it would gain some traction. I'm not releasing it under the Creative Commons license.
A link to the original essay will be provided in the show notes, as well as links to the references
of the source material I used for my research. Some of the links may be broken, in which case,
you may need to use a way back machine to follow up. And so, with no further ado,
I present to you my ethical analysis of renewable energy and conservation.
The purpose of this assignment is to examine the issues of energy faced by individuals in
society as a result of scientific discoveries and technological advances as it pertains to
the various aspects of energy, including energy conservation, energy efficiency,
renewable energy sources, and otherwise. Most people would agree that energy conservation and
renewable energy are both noble causes that need to be embraced by all. However, when we dig
a little deeper, we discover some very challenging ethical issues. The biggest ethical issue that
stands out is the impact these initiatives have on those living at or around the poverty line.
Before I proceed, a working definition of poverty needs to be established. Classical economist
Adam Smith, 1776, eloquently established that poverty is the lack of the essentials of life,
or as he calls them the necessaries. By necessaries, I understand not only the commodities which are
indispensable necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it
indecent for credible people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example,
is strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very
comfortably, though they had no linen. But in present times, through the greater part of Europe,
a credible day-labor would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt. Custom,
in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest,
credible person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them. This is from Book
5 Chapter 2 Article 4. Based on this widely accepted definition, energy is considered a commodity,
which is indispensable necessary for the support of life. While Canada has no official measure of
poverty, Felighi 1997, it clearly exists. It is not the purpose of this essay to define how many
Canadians live at or below some poverty line. However, for the purpose of this essay, it is essential
for the reader to acknowledge that poverty exists in Canada. For the sake of this essay,
I will assume a poverty line exists at the point where a person can afford to feed,
shod, and cloth themselves appropriately. As well as a forward shelter, complete with heat,
some means of cooking their food, and light with no money left over after paying for these
necessary. I will assume that such a person can't afford to take whatever public transportation
is available to transport between their home and their work, as well as two and from places
where they can buy their necessaries. Such a person living at this line will not be able to
afford anything beyond their necessaries, and any additional expense will serve to push them
below the poverty line, as well as bring more people to that line. Each new technology brings with
it a cost. The increase in cost is necessary to offset the development of the infrastructure
necessary for the new technology. A good example of this is the compact fluorescent light bulb.
Today, the mass produced compact fluorescent will pass the point where the cost to build
in tool factories to manufacture has been recaptured, is at a price where people can realize
and energy savings in the long term to offset the higher price of the compact fluorescent.
Still costing anywhere from between three to ten times the cost of a comparable
incandescent light bulb, my new 2010, the cost advantage of the compact fluorescent is only
realized over an extended period of time measured in years. A person living at or near the poverty line
does not have years to wait. They need to realize the energy savings much sooner than that in order
to survive. The problem becomes bigger when we explore home heating. Consider a modern high
efficiency gas furnace or even a ground source heat pump. These solutions cost thousands,
if not tens of thousands, to implement. The payback period can take many years. We recognize the
importance of moving to more efficient heating solutions now to save money later when energy costs
go up. However, to the poor, such solutions are not even remotely viable. Quite often, those at
or near the poverty line will adopt whatever source of heating costs the least to implement.
And today, that source is more often than not electric heaters. Consider a $40 electric
baseboard heater versus the thousands in cost of a high efficiency gas furnace or the tens of
thousands for a geothermal system. And it's obvious that the most expensive source of heating
to operate is likely the only type of heat within price range of those living near or at the
poverty line. While some families living at the poverty line would be financially better off
investing in a modern high efficiency form of heat, their inability to come up with the investment
capital ensures they will be stuck with high heating bills to keep them at the poverty line.
As we move towards a future that includes renewable energy, we recognize the fact that there is a
certain expense that comes with implementing renewable energy sources. It is necessary for the
infrastructure of solar, photovoltaic and wind turbines that electricity rates will go up.
While we tend to agree that it's necessary for the cost of energy to go up in order to encourage
conservation and to give people the push they need to move towards more energy efficient solutions,
we do so without regard for those living at or near the poverty line. What we push for in the name
of the environment will serve to push those at the poverty line deeper into poverty and introduce
more Canadians to that poverty line. As the poverty rate goes up, so does the crime rate,
Ellen 2008. Overall, we could then expect our quality of life to go down due to this effect.
Clearly, the greater good dictates that we must address this issue before proceeding with
current conservation and renewable energy measures. This issue isn't a new one. For example, in 1994,
the National Housing Institute recognized that energy costs were one major, if not the major,
operating cost to many low-income households, and recognized that promoting affordable energy
bills was a necessary component of any strategy to address the sustainability of overall
shelter affordability. They pointed out that in 1992, 5.3 million households had utility
service disconnected for non-payment. It was suggested that while energy efficiency
helped address the inability to pay, it had its limits. They then recommended energy efficiency
improvements, discounted rates, and regulatory protections, Colton 1994. As recent as March 23, 2010,
a study from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, ACCE, found that poor Americans
were spending a disproportionate part of their income on energy, as much as 69% for families
earning less than $10,000 per year. For those earning just under $50,000 per year,
that percentage is 19%. Bedired 2010, while the source of this report would seem to make this
study appear entirely self-serving, there is no denying the truth that increased energy costs
directly impacts the poor. In March of 2010, the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, NAACP, along with the Florida Power and Light Company, FPL, announced that
the conservation goals of the state of Florida help the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
According to the NAACP and the FPL, wealthier people are using rebates for energy saving products
that the poor simply cannot afford, and since all utility customers ultimately pay for the rebates,
it's forcing the poor to subsidize the wealthy. According to FPL consultant Jim Dean,
quote, electricity rates tend to be regressive. By this I mean that lower income users who are
less likely to participate in energy saving programs will pay more for their utility bills
as a percentage of their disposable income than higher income users. Patel, 2010.
The City of Austin, Texas passed an ambitious climate protection plan in 2007, but advocates are now
concerned about how those energy plans will affect the poor and elderly, in particular negatively
impacting those who are now living on a limited fixed income. Austin Energy planned to add a new
fee to pay for transmission lines for wind energy generated in West Texas, starting at $0.60 a month
in rising over the years. There are also concerns about how much the rates will rise on top of this.
According to Ron Walker, chancellor for the Catholic diocese of Austin, there are a lot of people
who can barely afford their electricity bills now, and estimates their bills could go up by 50%
over the next five years. Currently, Austin Energy has several programs to help low-income families,
including up to $1,500 for energy efficiency improvements and fee reductions for those
ungovernment Abe programs, to he 2009. Energy conservation doesn't need to be out of reach
for those living near the poverty line. In the economically depressed south Bronx of New York,
the nonprofit Woman's Housing and Economic Development Corporation, WHED Co opened the
Intervale Green Housing Development last year. This is a 128-unit apartment building for low-income
families. By incorporating low-cost conservation measures with the construction of this building,
they have ensured that residents will be paying 30% less for their utilities. According to Nancy
Biberman, founder and president of WHED Co, going green is a survivability issue for low-income
families. Other similar initiatives by organizations such as the nonprofit,
car for support of housing and Miami, and the Resurrection Homes project in Chicago have
undertaken similar projects, demonstrating that going green isn't just for the wealthy,
WALSH 2009. Clearly, a multi-pronged approach to the implementation of conservation technology,
along with the implementation of renewable energy technology, is required in order to address
the needs of those living at or near the poverty line and avoid the ethical issues with
negative and possibly irreparable effects on our society. Up until recently, Ontario has enjoyed
an eco-energy retrofit program, with the federal and provincial governments issuing rebates
for energy upgrades performed in a home. Such a program could be designed to help those
near or at the poverty line conserve energy, but it would have to be set up so as not to require
an initial investment from the poor. Such a program will cost the government in the short run,
but ultimately will serve the greater good by possibly helping some families rise further
above the poverty line. The expense of retrofitting an efficient heating source combined with
air sealing and installation upgrades in place of old baseboard heaters in a drafty, poorly
insulated home would mean dramatically lower energy bills in the short term, and some of those
savings could go back into the program if implemented correctly, which could make such a program
self perpetuating. Renewable energy solutions need to be implemented at a rate as to not cause
energy rates to rise substantially, and when rates do rise, those at or near the poverty line
need to be insulated from those rates, at least until they have an opportunity to reduce their
consumption with modern technology. Such a system could be tied into a modified,
eco-energy retrofit program. Ultimately, as we progress into the future, we need to make sure
that we all can benefit from conservation and clean energy if we expect to maintain or improve
everyone's overall quality of life. We can all benefit, including the poor, which is the kind of
future I would like to see. Thank you for taking the time to listen to this podcast. If you have any
thoughts about this or any other ideas, I encourage you to record your own podcast and contribute
to Hacker Public Radio. Until next time, please remember to drive safe and have fun.
You've been listening to Hacker Public Radio at Hacker Public Radio dot org.
We are a community podcast network that releases shows every weekday, Monday through Friday.
Today's show, like all our shows, was contributed by an HPR listener like yourself.
If you ever thought of recording a podcast, then click on our contributing
to find out how easy it really is. Hacker Public Radio was founded by the Digital Dog
Pound and the Infonomicon Computer Club, and is part of the binary revolution at binrev.com.
If you have comments on today's show, please email the host directly, leave a comment on the website
or record a follow-up episode yourself. Unless otherwise status, today's show is released under
Creative Commons, Attribution, ShareLite, 3.0 license.
