Ethical Dilemma that Oil Corporations Face: Whether to prioritize wealth creation or protecting the

1 Ethical Dilemma that Oil Corporations Face: Whether to prioritize wealth creation or protecting the environment Final Essay Proposal Introduction Oil pipelines are linked to greenhouse gas emissions, underpinning their contribution to environmental degradation. The cost of funding pipelines is also criticized over what is said to be a waste of funds used to build low-carbon emitting infrastructural projects (Laurie, 2019).

Engineers working on the North America Pipeline projects face ethical dilemmas over whether to prioritize the protection of the environment and to abide by professional codes in the face of anticipated wealth creation through the projects. Rapid technological advancement has resulted in the invention of alternative energy sources; hence engineers should focus on developing distribution channels for this energy instead of constructing pipelines for fossil fuels.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this research is to study the ethical dilemma engineers working on the North America Pipeline Projects face, focusing on the duty to protect the environment, professional codes against anticipated benefits of projects. Engineers have the sole responsibility of promoting the health, safety, and welfare of the public as they go about their duties.

Unfortunately, the impact of fossil fuel combustion on the environment results in a detrimental impact on individuals and the community.

Literature Review According to Clark and Foster (2009), ecological imperialism is a problem that is linked to the scramble for scarce natural resources. As countries strive to access and use scarce resources, megaprojects are established, which have far-reaching implications on the

2 environment. However, these projects are considered inevitable to promote development.

Deneault and Sache (2012) hold that mining raises ethical concerns about the protection of the environment and economic development in Canada, creating dilemmas those stakeholders must address. Canada has embraced some controversial projects on the premise that they bring more economic benefits that make it justifiable to overlook the environmental issues involved.

However, mining has far-reaching effects on communities and the natural environment. Kennedy (2018) observes that every pipeline project that is constructed in North America must be signed off by an engineer, taking into account the legal and ethical concerns that it comes with.

Pipelines are used to transport oil from one point to another, highlighting their contribution to burning fossil fuels and, by extension, the environmental population. Engineers are required to place environmental safety above their professional and clients' demands, exposing them to a dilemma over what interest to prioritize.

According to Michelfelder and Jones (2013), the modern engineering code of ethics requires engineers to prioritize public interests over business and professional interests. The engineering code of ethics lays claim to professional standing, distinguishes engineers from general workers, and enables them to share the prestige of older and more respected professions, such as law and medicine. Engineering interests and business interests have always been aligned.

Similarly, there has previously been minimal conflict between the public interest and engineering interest because of the perception that engineering works are almost synonymous with human progress. Nonetheless, as society started to raise concerns about whether new technology was always in their interest, engineering interests have presently been perceived to occasionally conflict with the public interests. Therefore, it is because of this that we have seen in the recent years engineering code of ethics stressing the importance of making public interest a priority.

3 As pointed out by Michelfelder and Jones (2013), modern engineering codes of ethics require engineers to hold paramount the health and safety of the public. The engineering code of ethics forms part of a long-term agreement that the engineering profession has with the members of the public or the community, for that matter. The engineering code of ethics requires engineers to commit to putting the health, welfare, and safety of the society or the community before any other consideration (Michelfelder & Jones (2013). Religion, laws, and cultural conventions have traditionally defined morality. However, many people in the society of today are not religious and religious morality appears to be limited to sexuality, death, and life issues.

Conversely, laws also seem to have limited jurisdiction; they only cover issues to do with deception, and blatant fraud, which is less likely to push engineers to make good judgments.

Likewise, in a market economy, the morality of working life is based on cultural conventions that normally fall within the category of self-interest or ethical egoism. Many have argued that ethical egoism has nothing to do with morality due to its minimalist form of moral reasoning. For example, Beder (2007) points out that ethical egoism holds that every person should look after him or herself. Others have also suggested that this form of reasoning also entails considering other people's interests due to the idea that doing so serves one's own selfinterest in the long run. Ethical egoism has been demonstrated by other scholars who have suggested that social welfare is best served by people pursuing their own interests as well as by organizations looking to make maximum profits in a free market.

Beder (2007) states that engineering ethics often extend beyond ethical egoism. The ethical principle that requires engineers to put public interest before any other interests appear to work against the self-interest of the engineers. Some scholars have discussed ethics and morality in terms of a social contract resulting in serving self-interest in the long run. Ideally, a social

4 contract holds that if an individual adheres to the rules of morality instead of acting on personal self-interest, then every person will be better off, and society will become a better place for everyone to reside in. Nonetheless, Beder (2007) acknowledges the existence of a natural limit to the social contract by pointing out that if individuals are to obey the rules of morality in order for them to be better off, then they are most likely not to do so in a situation where obeying the rules will result in them being worse off.

This natural limit to the social contract particularly applies to the engineering code of ethics due to the fact that if it turns out to be a form of the social contract that offers social status to the professionals, then one should not expect engineers to adhere to any rules in the code of ethics that demands them to forget about their status as engineers. Prioritizing the interests of the public demands them to risk their careers and jobs, then such a requirement will be perceived as a too great sacrifice by most engineering professionals. This social contract has little power for engineers, given that their employers heavily influence the individual status of engineers. Studies have consistently shown that codes of ethics and conduct do not have significant power. Beder (2007) argues that engineers are, in essence, subordinate, and their status emanates from organizational mobility instead of technical expertise. He points out that it takes an engineer considerable strength and courage to obey the engineering code of ethics instead of his or her employer. The engineering code of ethics has been described to have very weak moral power compared to the employer, who seems to possess the power of economic life and death over an engineer.

In their discussion of the relationship between engineering and sustainable environment and development, Dutta and Sengupta (2014) put it that engineers have the responsibility of endorsing the principles of sustainable growth. Sustainable growth pushes for meeting the

5 current human needs from naturally available reserves, shelter, transportation, foodstuff, energy, and efficient ravage management while enhancing and conserving the quality of the earth's environment. According to Dutta and Sengupta (2014), engineers have a responsibility towards the general public to seek the various available opportunities to improve communal welfare, security, and well-being of both the local and global community equally through sustainable development practices. Given the fact that the safety and well-being of the community are entirely dependent on engineering decisions, assessment of risk, judgment, as well as the practices embedded in strategies, practices, produce, machinery, and structures, engineers ought to be conscientious and answerable to the duties they have been assigned. Therefore, they should purpose to adhere to the rules and regulations imposed by the community.

Engineers are responsible for the environment (Deneault & Sache, 2012; Dutta & Sengupta, 2014; Laurie, 2019). Scientific researchers have continuously linked environmental quality and human health. Air, water, and food are the essential components of life that offer potential pathways for contaminants to have an impact on people’s health. The pollution of air, water, and soil resulting from oil spillage and the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to various health disorders. Decreased disease resistance, hypersensitivity, nervous system disorders, allergic reactions, problems in reproduction and congenital disabilities, allergies, and immune diseases are disorders caused by the contamination of the environment (Dutta & Sengupta, 2014). Engineers have an obligation to the general public and should desist from undertaking projects that are likely to result in adverse air pollution, water pollution, and land pollution.

Discussion

6 The engineers working on a fossil-fuel pipeline project face dilemmas because, as a regulated profession, they are required to uphold a code of ethics while having responsibilities to their employers who are after making profits from the projects. Ethical interests and profitmaking ought to be balanced in projects that have implications on the natural environment, such as the construction of pipelines (Kennedy, 2018). The extraction of oil comes with the demand for transport infrastructure to ensure a steady supply of the product to the market. Pipelines are considered less costly and environmentally friendly than the use of road transport systems.

Engineers operate under their clients' instructions; hence, they do not have much authority beyond making propositions on what is good and morally right within a set of instructions.

Given the well-known fact that fossil fuel combustion plays a role in facilitating climate change coupled with the emergence of technological alternatives to fossil fuels, people practicing engineering face a huge dilemma. An engineer’s obligation to protect the environment renders any of them accepting to work in a fossil fuel pipeline today in a precarious position (van Den Hoven, 2019). Engineering is a regulated profession; engineers are obliged to adhere to a code of ethics that requires or demands them to place the interests of the society above any other interests, including the interests of their employers or their own. An engineer has the responsibility of promoting the safety, health, and welfare of the community or society in addition to committing to protect the environment.

An engineer's environmental duties extend beyond the local boundary and stretch to include such worldwide environmental challenges as climate change. Because of this, for instance, the National Society for Professional Engineering (NSPE) encourages engineers to uphold the principles of sustainable development. Similar organizations in various countries have emphasized the need for engineers to support sustainable development principles in the course of

7 their professional practice. In essence, the first and primary canon of the American Society of Civil Engineers states that “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties” (Michelfelder & Jones, p. 239).

Engineers working on oil pipeline projects in North America carry out their responsibilities with a sufficient understanding that the oil will get combusted and lead to the emission of greenhouse gas into the air. Proponents of these projects have argued that pipelines transport is safer than other means of transporting oil like rail because it produces few emissions.

Such kind of arguments is misinformed. Studies have consistently shown that the infrastructure systems of fossil fuels result in carbon lock-in, hooking communities, increasing their reliance on fossil fuels, and enhancing emissions in the long term. The economic cost for both rail transport and fossil-fuel pipelines holds no water if we are serious about saving the environment by minimizing emissions (van Den Hoven, 2019). The construction of pipelines requires the use of scarce capital that would otherwise have been spent in developing infrastructure that supports such a low-carbon economy as renewable power generation and transmission lines.

One of the traditionally used methods to decide whether such major pipeline projects should be undertaken is Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Despite being used by engineers as part of their decision-making processes, environmental costs and benefits have usually not been quantified and included in the analyses. Such costs were only listed somewhere separately in a quantitative for consideration. Beder (2007) points out that a sustainable development approach would encompass incorporating these environmental costs and benefits by pricing them and including them in the calculations. The CBA method embodies consequentialist ethics, given that it aims at ensuring that good consequences are more than bad consequences and the

8 consequences are measured in money terms. Nonetheless, the methods work against the ethics of equality, and the consequences are not fully captured when they are measured in financial terms.

The method concerns aggregated costs and benefits and fail to deal with how such benefits and costs are distributed despite their distribution being of great concern when considering equity. The CBA assumes that society is better off as long as the sum of benefits is more than the costs, even if a small number of individuals get the benefits and a whole community suffers the costs. Economists sometimes argue that the winners could compensate the losers and still be better off if the total benefits outweigh the total costs. This is theoretical reasoning, given that it rarely happens. The CBA is not adequate given that it barely takes into account the value of future consequences.

The construction of pipelines for oil transportation is bad because it does not promote environmental sustainability. Investing in oil pipelines results in using resources to develop tomorrow's stranded assets other than directing these resources to social benefit projects. The construction of pipelines is driven by the narrow economic interests of the fossil fuel industry, which the engineering code of ethics is completely against (van Den Hoven, 2019). Many in the engineering profession are yet to understand the kind of ethical dilemma they are in when it comes to oil pipeline construction. From the foregoing discussion, engineers working on oil pipelines are violating their duties and responsibilities to the environment. Ideally, there is a need for a serious discussion among engineers and society on ethical issues.

Unlike in the previous years, the alternatives to fossil fuel technologies are no longer expensive hence can be easily acquired and used instead of combusting fossil fuel. Rapid technological changes have resulted in a sharp fall in the prices of electric vehicles, batteries, solar power, and wind power. Today, China has managed to construct wind turbines that can

9 adequately meet the electricity requirements of major towns. Thus, instead of investing in pipelines for the transportation of dangerous fossil fuels, engineers and the concerned stakeholders in the United States should focus on investing in renewable power generation.

Kennedy (2018) points out that electric vehicles now make more than five percent of the market share in cities such as Shanghai, Stockholm, and San Francisco. Notably, the market share of electric vehicles in Oslo and Amsterdam has reached 36 percent and 12 percent, respectively (Kennedy, 2018). The truth is that the United States cannot immediately switch off fossil fuels.

However, it is possible to stop constructing new fossil fuel infrastructure. Engineers are doing a commendable job in coming up with alternative sources of energy to minimize the use and impact of fossil fuels on the environment and public health. It is time for engineers to come true to their code of ethics and stop working on pipelines.

Conclusion Engineers working on the North America Pipeline Projects face an ethical dilemma on whether to prioritize the protection of the environment and abide by professional codes in the face of anticipated wealth creation through the projects. In addition, the engineers have a duty to the project owner and their professional demands that make it hard to strike a balance between the two, especially when it is clear that pipeline projects contribute to environmental degradation. Engineering codes of ethics require engineers to take the well-being, healthiness, and safety of the community seriously more than their commitment to clients and employers.

Unfortunately, engineering organizations have not offered much guidance on prioritizing the public good. When an engineer finds a project that is a threat to the safety of the community, he or she need not remain silent but inform the concerned authorities.

10 Professional engineers are expected to be instrumental in achieving environmental sustainability. They should actively work to enhance the welfare, health, and safety of the community with minimal use of natural resources and pay attention to the environment and the sustainability of resources. Engineers have the sole responsibility of providing options and solutions to enhance social value and reduce environmental impact. One should not underestimate the engineers' authoritative responsibility and guidance in achieving sustainability.

Sustainable development requires the government to lead by establishing public policy, administering legislation, delivering programs and services, taking part in national and global environmental proposals, as well as seeing to it that it manages its own operations conscientiously (van Den Hoven, 2019). Engineers have the responsibility of protecting our environment by coming up with recyclable and renewable energy sources resources that can promote a better life for everyone today and the future generation. The solution to the dilemma regarding the code of ethics and responsibility to employers lies in the development of alternative energy sources like wind and solar energy. Unlike fossil fuels, these sources of energy have proved to be cheap and environmentally friendly. In addition, they have also been found to be reliable, able to meet electric power requirements in different cities and countries across the globe, China being a good example. Thus, engineers need to adhere to their code of ethics and stop working on pipelines for fossil fuels.

11 References Beder, S. (2007). Engineers, ethics, and sustainable development. In Structures and Norms in Science (pp. 127-143). Springer, Dordrecht.

Clark, B. & Foster, J. B. (2009). Ecological Imperialism and the Global Metabolic Rift Unequal Exchange and the Guano/Nitrates Trade. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 50(3–4).

Deneault, A. & Sache, W. (2012). Legal Haven of Choice for the World’s Mining Industries.

Talonbooks.

Dutta, E. A. B., & Sengupta, D. I. (2014). Engineering and sustainable environment. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, 2(6).

Kennedy, C. (July 6, 2018). Engineers face ethical dilemma over pipelines. Times Colonist. https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-engineers-face-ethical-dilemmaover-pipelines-1.23359590 Laurie, R. (2019). Still Ethical Oil: Framing the Alberta Oil Sands. In The Rhetoric of Oil in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 169-188). Routledge.

Michelfelder, D., & Jones, S. A. (2013). Sustaining engineering codes of ethics for the twentyfirst century. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 237-258. van Den Hoven, J. (2019). Ethics and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: The case for comprehensive engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(6), 1789-1797.