Green Power Case Analysis

In this case, there are two solutions presented to reduce carbon emissions in the air from burning fossil fuels; as a result, it will reduce global warming. In this paper, these solutions and questions related to them are to be discussed and analyzed.

In the first proposition, AVA Solar proposes to use solar energy in place of fossil fuel to reduce carbon emission rates. Although solar energy is an excellent method of generating clean “green” energy, has a popular appeal, and is typically given high marks in regards to “green” technology. This process raises concerns due to the use of cadmium, a toxic element used in solar panels that raises concerns about cancer. As an engineer, the first fundamental canon in the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) codes of ethics is, “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”. Therefore, an engineer’s moral obligation is to not create or innovate something that is going to harm people. However, as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) code, states that “Engineers should be committed to improving the environment, to enhance the quality of life” (sec 1.f). In another ASCE document, “The role of an engineer is sustainable development”. As a result, an engineer in his decision should consider both the NSPE first code of ethics and also follow the ASCE code.

According to utilitarianism in doing the most good for the most number of people, this means that solar energy should be used to benefit human kind; whereas, the minority group that is exposed to cadmium such as workers in developing and in production of solar panels are neglected; unlike respect for persons theory where everyone matters...

... middle of paper ...

...or Powertech and its Colorado land and project manager, urges that its company’s proposal be judged on facts; however, does Douglas have a bias towards Powertech, Would her statement be different if she wasn’t working for them, and is she being neutral. Douglas implies the words “good science”, the word “good” is subjective, and it means different things to different people. “Good” science cannot be pure good; it always has its “bad” aspects linked to it. As a result, “good” science alone can never provide the answers wanted.

In the end, in my opinion, science cannot solve a problem without creating a new one. There’s always going to be environmental and ethical issues associated with science and technology. As an engineer, he or she should have a critical attitude towards technology and science and always be cautious and aware of both the benefits and risks/costs.