Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics EJAIB

6Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 18 (January 2008)discussion ensued, following on from the previous discussion,about the scale of energy technologies and the implicationsfor governance, centralization of decision-making anddemocratic participation. Prof Manohar said that hisrecommendations would be to decentralize power generationfacilities, utilize local resources wherever possible, anddevelop international cooperation on the peaceful use ofenergy technologies.The second day, 27 September, started with a sessionon the North-South Divide and energy equity. Dr MasamiNakata from UNESCO’s Jakarta office reported onUNESCO’s Natural Science Sector’s efforts for improvingenergy equity. Dr Nakata said that there was already a largepopulation in lesser developed countries who did not havegood access to conventional technology such as electricityand fossil fuels. A decrease in availability of fossil fuels in thefuture could heighten inequity in energy access. UNESCO’sNatural Science Sector was therefore working on renewableenergy as a way to improve energy equity and promoteenvironmentally responsible development. She outlinedseveral projects the office was working on, including theRenewable Energy Database, led by Prof Kumar of the AsianInstitute of Technology in collaboration with UNESCAP andUNESCO; the Gender Mainstreaming in Energy project, ledby the University of Indonesia in collaboration with UNESCO;and e-learning distance education courses in the Asia-Pacificon renewable energy.Dr Pil-Ryul Lee asked Dr Nakata about the extent ofcooperation between her office in Jakarta and the Parisheadquarters of UNESCO. He was aware that there was asummer school on renewable energy at headquarters as wellas many programs on technology transfer to Asian andAfrican countries. There was a lot of communication withUNESCO headquarters, she replied, as they were in thesame organization and the number of people workingspecifically on energy issues was few. Headquarters’geographical focus was, however, on Africa, whereas theJakarta office was of course focused on Asia. Dr Maceradded that in many of the UN organizations, the focus was onthe continent with the direst situation, which is Africa.However, this has meant that the Asia Pacific region receivesless attention, both in terms of funding and activities fromheadquarters. This was one of the issues of working in aregion which has intermediate and very diverse status. Thefield offices in Asia and the Pacific therefore networked withmany partners, as in the project described by Dr Nakata andas in the Ethics of Energy project being launched at theconference.Dr Charn Mayot asked for more information on the targetaudience of the e-learning programs on renewable energymentioned by Dr Nakata. Were they intended for technicalpeople, such as engineers, or for ordinary people who wantedbioenergy in rural communities, for example? Dr Nakata saidthat originally the target had been graduate students, middlelevelpolicymakers, the NGOs and also the private sector, butthat in practice many students joined and more research andrefinement was needed to recruit policymakers for the nextround of courses.Dr Alastair S. Gunn from New Zealand spoke on ‘Energy,efficiency and equity’, noting the inequities in access toenergy both between and within nations, in part because ofnatural endowments and financial resources that determinedthe number of ‘energy slaves’ available to each person. DrGunn suggested avoiding generalizations between ‘rich’ and‘poor’ countries, noting that states of development were notstatic, and in the Asia Pacific region especially enormousgains had been made. Nevertheless, there were importantquestions of socio-economic equity in determining who willbear the costs of a reduction in carbon emissions andpollution. While most people in developing countries (and thepoor within affluent countries) were seeking ‘social andeconomic justice ... freedom and self-determination’, the postaffluentwere rejecting values of over-consumption,technological efficiency and economic growth. Dr Gunnargued that the affluent have no right to preach subsistenceliving to the poor, however. There was no realistic way toreduce energy demand in developing countries, although itmight be offset by innovation and improvements in efficiencyin both generation and utilization.There was a diverse range of questions about Dr Gunn’spresentation, and especially about New Zealand’s ability toinnovate in energy policy relative to other countries in the AsiaPacific region. Dr Gunn felt that New Zealand was a historicalinnovator in social and environmental policy, but this was inpart due to the fact that it was a lucky country: it was mediumsized,relatively wealthy, had a mild climate, no majorenvironmental problems, and was a highly educated,democratically literate population that expected governmentsto be responsive to their concerns and consult on major policydecisions. The population was relatively low and stable, whichmeant that inhabitants could lead an affluent lifestyle thatmight be environmentally disastrous elsewhere.Dr Sumittra Charojrochkul and Mr Issa Abyad askedspecifically about how New Zealand planned to accommodatedairy farming within its target to become ‘carbon-neutral’ by2020; as cows contributed to emissions by producing muchmethane. Dr Gunn said that this was a subject of discussionin New Zealand. The problem was that cows have inefficientdigestive systems. Possible options were improving thedigestive system of cows or improving the quality of the feedprovided through genetic modification.In his presentation, ‘Global warming and disparity inenergy consumption between North and South: The need forglobal justice principles to take care of the environment’, DrSoraj Hongladarom from Thailand outlined some of thearguments about the respective ethical obligations ofdeveloped and developing countries in light of the KyotoProtocol process and climate change at large. Developedcountries had the highest per capita consumption of energy,at rates which the world would be unable to sustain if appliedto every person in China or India. Through a system ofexploitation and colonialism (old or new), the North reapedthe benefits, leaving the South to scramble for what was left.Yet some rich countries such as the USA and Australia didnot sign the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that developing countriesalso needed to curb energy consumption, and to strengthentheir legal and political frameworks against environmentaldegradation and corruption. Dr Hongladarom called for asystem of global justice that would transcend nationalinterests and recognize that all countries shared the sameplanet. A fair system of sharing, where the North shared theexpertise and the South the resources, needed to becombined with a more prudent use of energy andenvironmental mindfulness.Dr Mayot asked for some clarification on DrHongladarom’s use of the term ‘global authority’ as a corollaryto ‘global justice’. Dr Hongladarom explained that he hadused the term global authority in a wide sense. It could meanthe United Nations, but the United Nations was not asovereign power, although if the five permanent members ofthe Security Council worked together unanimously they couldhave some teeth. The usual conception of justice was thatthere has to be some form of power to enforce justice. So ifwe continued to rely and believe in the principle of sovereignstates then perhaps global authority was not going to beeffective. Dialogue might be another approach.Finally, Dr Amru Hydari Nazif spoke on ‘Ethical analysishardly made: Energy paths not considered in energy planningin Indonesia’. Oil, coal and gas remained Indonesia’s mostimportant energy resources, but there were also uraniumreserves that had been the subject of speculation since the1950s. Indonesia currently had three research reactors andwas considering nuclear power for centralized electricity