Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics EJAIB

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 18 (January 2008) 7generation. Dr Nazif expressed concern about the threatposed by radiotoxicity to flora and fauna, including humansand the environment. He questioned why renewable energieshad not been more seriously considered as an ‘energy path’in Indonesia and considered the appropriate point(s) in anenergy planning cycle for rigorous ethical analysis withcommunity consultation.Dr Ayoub Aby-Dayyeh asked why the Indonesians,having started on research nuclear plants in the 1970s inparallel with the South Koreans, were not more advanced innuclear power and technology. Was it because Indonesia hadplentiful oil reserves and had not felt a critical need to developalternative energy? Dr Nazif agreed that it was, althoughIndonesia was now working with the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA) to progress its nuclear program.After a tea break, there was a fifth session onConstructing and reconciling visions of differentcommunities. Dr Miyako Okada-Takagi from Japandescribed in her presentation ‘Enhancing energy educationthrough internet game content’, how Nihon University inTokyo had designed a computer game for the Tokyo ElectricPower Company (TEPCO). The game was available on thepower company’s home page, and was intended to educatethe Japanese public, particularly young people, about howenergy is generated, including nuclear, thermal andhydroelectric power. The information provided was factualinformation about the entire electric power system, frompower stations to the power supply system. Dr Okada-Takagishowed a demonstration of the game and gave out keychains featuring game characters which were distributed bythe company.There were a number of questions and comments on theeffectiveness and content of the game. Dr On-Kwok Lai saidthat game looked like it was fun to play, but to what extent didit help people to accept nuclear energy in their daily life? DrOkada-Takagi replied that although 40 per cent of Japan’senergy is supplied by nuclear power generation, theJapanese people were still extremely sensitive about nuclearenergy and this was due in part to the fact that they did notunderstand the technical aspects of it. So the gamedemystified the power generation process and was a learningexperience at the same time as being fun. Dr Masami Nakataand Dr Robert Kanaly queried the ethics of a power company(the game’s sponsor, TEPCO) taking it upon themselves toeducate the population about a product they had acommercial interest in. If the people did not understandnuclear power, asked Dr Kanaly, surely it was theresponsibility of the government and education system ratherthan the private sector? Dr Okada-Takagi said that althoughthere were seminars held by the government and informationwas available about nuclear power, it was not presented in anentertaining way so people did not come. Also, she clarifiedthat in addition to the game about nuclear energy, there weregames about other systems such as hydro power and thermalpower. At the company’s request, the content of the gameswas limited to factual information about how power generationworked, rather arguing the pros and cons of different energytypes.Prof John Weckert from Australia analyzed twoarguments used in the energy debate: ‘If we don’t others will’,and ‘we won’t until others do’. Prof Weckert considered thevalidity of these arguments, often used in Australia withregards to action on climate change, in terms ofconsequentialist and deontological points of view. Indetermining its energy policy, should a country judge a policyby its likely consequences (including the harm caused, effectson other countries by way of setting an example, and thelikely effectiveness in combating climate change)? Where theconsequences of a national policy appear to have little impacton the global community as a whole, should a country dowhat is ethically right anyway, even at cost to its economyand citizens’ livelihoods?Prof Weckert received a question about his personalopinion regarding uranium issues in Australia, and also thereason why Australia did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.Regarding the Kyoto Protocol, he said that the two mainarguments were that the US and China had not signed it, andAustralia’s foreign policy was heavily influenced by the US;and that Australia’s economy was very reliant on brown coaland to curb emissions dramatically would have an impact oneconomic growth and employment. Regarding nuclear power,he said that he was not a scientist, but personally he felt thatpolitical sensitivity about nuclear power indicated that it wasnot as safe as it was made out to be. Dr Jasdev Rai made theobservation that the argument – ‘if we don’t sell it, somebodyelse will’ – was also used in the arms industry. He made thepoint that this argument did not consider that if we sell, othersmight sell it at a more competitive price with fewersafeguards. Prof Weckert agreed that if Australia solduranium with fairly stringent safeguards, that would make itsuranium less attractive in some ways than uranium fromcountries that didn’t have those safeguards, and it might wellmake it more expensive at various levels of its transportationand use and so on. Australia might then come under pressureto lower its safeguards to avoid being undercut.Dr Nguyen Hoang Tri from Vietnam spoke about energydemand and consumption in Vietnam. Like many othercountries, the demand for energy in Vietnam was increasingas a result of increased use of air-conditioning, increasedprivate vehicle ownership, increased consumption of meatand dairy, and cycles of domestic consumption and overwork.Dr Ayoub Aby-Dayyeh asked about technology transferinto Vietnam. If Vietnam was to develop renewable energies,how would it develop the technology for its people to use, andcould it compete in technological development and researchwith the ever developing world market sponsored by wealthycountries and companies? Dr Hoang Tri said that whilepreviously, Vietnam had to choose between Westerncountries and the former Soviet states for technicalcooperation, international relationships were now becomingmore open, and Vietnam had many contacts in Japan andGermany and so on. Dr Masami Nakata noted that Vietnamhad in fact very promising indigenous biogas technology also.Dr Abhik Gupta asked about how the VietnameseGovernment was planning for the tremendous increases inenergy demand driven by the current rapid pace ofinfrastructure development in Vietnam. Dr Hoang Tri repliedthat Vietnam was looking at a number of options. Biogas wasan attractive possibility, highlighted as a priority in the 21 stGovernment Agenda. Some experiments from Thailand inethanol and biodiesel could also prove very useful forVietnam because Vietnam was an agricultural country.Hydroelectricity and nuclear energy were also beingconsidered.Dr Ngo Thi Tuyen from Vietnam spoke on aspects of herwork as Deputy Director at the Center of EducationTechnology, for the Ministry of Education and Training. TheCenter promoted environmental education in a ‘ConfucianHeritage cultural context’ that stressed interpersonalrelationships and group cohesion in debates. Environmentaleducation in schools – through the arts and sciencescurriculum, outdoor activities and care of the classroomenvironment – is an important way to make communityattitudes more considerate of the environment. Ms Tuyen toldthe conference about children’s fairs that had been organizedin schools for exchanging and sharing used things, clothes,toys and books. In order to encourage a culture of saving andsharing, children brought in things they didn’t need from homeand exchanged them for others, or made things such as dolls’clothes from recycled fabric.